DNAME issues (was Re: ip6.int deprecation)

[Nick Hilliard]

On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 13:21 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 9-mei-2006, at 13:01, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> 
> >> Wouldn't having a DNAME record for ip6.int be a very good way to
> >> uncover DNAME brokeness without real trouble?
> 
> >> Since when does DNAME need testing?
> 
> > ???
> 
> Testing is what you do to find problems. If you know the problems are  
> there, it's no longer testing.

So, you want to put in a DNAME for ip6.int in order to uncover DNAME
brokenness, and are trying to pretend that this isn't a way of finding
problems with DNAME implementations (i.e. testing)?

I don't mean to be a smart-ass here, but apart from being inconsistent,
this is also profoundly incompatible with what you said in another
email:

1. Do the right thing. ALWAYS.
2. Don't expect anyone else to.

Look, ip6.int is deprecated;  there is no point in artificially
breathing more life to the domain by using DNAME when really, it just
needs to die quietly.  And breathing life into it by implementing a DNS
RR which is know to have problems on some system, is the Wrong Thing.
Quite categorically the Wrong Thing.

Nick