Subject: Re: question regarding wildcards and 2672

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:00:10 -0700

>> As DNAME is a "zone terminator" it just feels wrong that
    >> wildcard DNAME can be expanded more than one label, and in my
    >> mind should not be allowed.  Having said that, I do not think
    >> the wildcard clarify document should spend much time on
    >> updating a experimental RFC.

If we accept wildcard DNAMEs are just too awful, it should be OK
for the document to say something like: "wildcard DNAMEs are
forbidden". Either as a general rule or in the specific case of
DNSSEC. 

    >> Having said that I think wildcard [CD]NAME is bogus and was not
    >> indented in RFC103[45], but in the case of CNAME the genie is
    >> out of the bottle.

True, but let's not provide another bottle for another genie. There's
not much use of DNAME yet so this particular stable door could get
closed before the horse has bolted. Apologies for the mixed metaphors.

--
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: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:21:54 +0000

> >How do people feel about barring DNAME records at wild cards?

i think this is the right thing.

> ...
> As DNAME is a "zone terminator"

it's not, though.  see isc-tn-2002-1.txt (at www.isc.org/tn) for an example
of "DNAME and other data" all at the apex of a zone.