[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] discussion needed: 0009 Support for IPv6 elements in idnsForwarders attribute

[Simo Sorce]

Either way looks ok to me.
I agree that using a space may be less confusing if this syntax never
allows to specify multiple addresses.
If multiple address can be specified than it may be less ideal to use
spaces.

Simo.

On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 15:14 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
> And there is the patch, sorry.
> 
> Petr^2
> 
> On 02/29/2012 03:10 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > this patch fixes https://fedorahosted.org/bind-dyndb-ldap/ticket/49 ,
> > but I want to discuss one (unimplemented) change:
> >
> > I propose a change in (currently very strange) forwarders syntax.
> >
> > Current syntax:
> > <IP>[.port]
> >
> > examples:
> > 1.2.3.4 (without optional port)
> > 1.2.3.4.5553 (optional port 5553)
> > A::B (IPv6, without optional port)
> > A::B.5553
> > ::FFFF:1.2.3.4 (6to4, without optional port)
> > ::FFFF:1.2.3.4.5553 (6to4, with optional port 5553)
> >
> > I find this syntax confusing, non-standard and not-typo-proof.
> >
> >
> > IMHO better choice is to follow BIND forwarders syntax:
> > <IP> [port ip_port] (port is string delimited with spaces)
> >
> > (From: http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch7/queries.html#forwarders)
> >
> >
> > *Current syntax is not documented*, so probably is not used anywhere.
> > (And DNS server on non-standard port is probably useful only for testing
> > purposes, but it's another story.)
> >
> >
> > What is you opinion?
> _______________________________________________
> Freeipa-devel mailing list
> Freeipa-devel at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel


-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York