Subject: Re: question regarding wildcards and 2672

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:46:35 -0400

At 9:13 -0400 6/17/03, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
>Having said that, I do not think the wildcard clarify document should spend
>much time on updating a experimental RFC.

What's intended are paragraphs on what are apparently the three 
resource records (known to date) that have an impact on wild cards. 
The three are NS, CNAME, and DNAME.

(As a measure of the need to document something - a few of us have 
spent a couple of on-line hours in the past week discussing DNAME. 
When a topic takes so much time among folks that know DNS, you know 
it needs some deeper documenting.)

The DNAME paragraph in the wild card clarify document will be the 
shortest of the three - for one thing, DNAME is experimental.  I 
think it's important to place the text in the wild card draft as I 
don't think anyone is currently editing a follow-on to DNAME.  (2026 
makes no statement about the need to review experimental rfcs, unlike 
standards track rfcs.)

>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.
>
>I think the "right thing to do" for the wildcard clarify document,
>is to put in a strongly worded warning that wildcard DNAME leads to
>unintended and strange results. Thus is it strongly discouraged.
>Of course I realize this will leave us in the same position as with
>with multiple CNAME RRs in a set, someone will find use and refuse to
>give it up when shown the documents, because it works.

Perhaps there will be a catch all requirement like - any RR defined 
(from here on out) MUST describe how it is handled if it is owned by 
a wild card domain name.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

...as graceful as a blindfolded bull in a china shop...

--
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: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:04:06 -0700

>> Having said that, I do not think the wildcard clarify document
>> should spend much time on updating a experimental RFC.
> resource records (known to date) that have an impact on wild
> cards.  The three are NS, CNAME, and DNAME.

and, if there are any complications solely for the experimental DNAME
RR, then do not complicate.

randy

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:03:43 -0700 (PDT)

% What's intended are paragraphs on what are apparently the three 
% resource records (known to date) that have an impact on wild cards. 
% The three are NS, CNAME, and DNAME.

	what!  no SOA?

% Perhaps there will be a catch all requirement like - any RR defined 
% (from here on out) MUST describe how it is handled if it is owned by 
% a wild card domain name.

	amen.

--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:20:31 +1000

> At 23:06 2003-06-16, Edward Lewis wrote:
> >With a light bulb supplied by Mark Andrews, in the never ending effort to 
> >clarify wild cards...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> >One reason for the problem is that a wild card is allowed to own a DNAME 
> >record.
> >Another reason for the problem is that there is no restriction on how many 
> >labels a wild card domain matches.
> >
> >How do people feel about barring DNAME records at wild cards?
> >How do people feel about limiting the DNAME to matching just one label?
> >(I.e., In ACT I, the reply to '1.2.example. DNAME IN' would be:
> >                       2.example.   DNAME example.org.
> >                       1.2.example. CNAME 1.example.org)
> 
> 
> 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.

Network Working Group                                        M. Crawford
Request for Comments: 2672                                      Fermilab
Category: Standards Track                                    August 1999

	Please cite the RFC that moves DNAME to experimental.  Note
	it is *not* RFC 3363.

	Plain DNAMEs provide a useful tool.  Wildcard DNAMEs on the other
	hand I have a hard time trying to envision a sensible use for them
	even with single label expansion.

> in RFC103[45], but in the case of CNAME the genie is out of the bottle.

	I agree that wildcard CNAMEs are out of the bottle and the
	algorithm should be updated to make it clear that they
	should be returned even when the QTYPE does not match and 
	be followed if appropriate.
 
>          Olafur
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]