Subject: Re: wcard-clarify's change

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 06:26:38 +0859 ()

> > I have not seen a counter argument against Roberts statement that
> > caches and authoritative servers will behave differently when a cache
> > has previously stored the result of a QTYPE=CNAME query. 
> 
> i think the clarification that bears on that point is that
> wildcard-synthesized data should have TTL=0 to prevent caching.

The only recommended behaviour for wildcarded CNAME is, just
like other wildcarded RRs, that raw wildcard data should not be
cached to prevent faulty implementations use it for synthesis.

Wildcard-synthesized data is just as valid as non-synthesized ones.

							Masataka Ohta

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:58:39 +0700

Date:        Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:45:11 +0000
    From:        Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | i think the clarification that bears on that point is that
  | wildcard-synthesized data should have TTL=0 to prevent caching.

That would certainly not be a clarification, that would be a change,
without doubt.

Making the algorithm explicitly handle wildcard CNAMES can be seen
as a clarification (or what was intended) - forcing TTL=0 certainly
cannot.

Alternatively, if the common view is that wildcard CNAME shouldn't work,
then simply outlawing it could also be seen as a clarification (since the
algorithm doesn't work, it must have been intended not to be allowed),
forcing TTL=0 certainly cannot...

kre