Subject: RE: a suggestion for super-wildcards

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:27:28 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> The problem with Doug's approach is that he is proposing a new record 
> for each and every policy that is declared. This is not scalable and 
> creates a situation that has never existed before where the development 
> of each new Internet protocol is dependent on IANA and IETF action.

<sarcasm>

It never existed before? Really?

</sarcasm>

---
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]

--
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: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 00:42:25 -0700

On Aug 5, 2006, at 6:38 PM, Danny Mayer wrote:

> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>>
>> Incidentaly, does anyone know the extent of support for TSIG in  
>> Windows?
>>
>
> TSIG on BIND 9 for Windows works fine. Maybe you can ask the  
> question with more specifics.

Bind is not required. TSIG is a predefined Windows 2000 structure. See:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/ 
cnet/cncf_imp_afpf.mspx?mfr=true

Can a shrink-wrap version of an XP Windows OS within a shrink-wrap  
Windows domain handle undefined RR types by type numbers in the API,  
and then allow parsing the results into an application's structure?  
It does not look promising after reviewing windns.h.

-Doug

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:59:22 -0700

On Aug 6, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Danny Mayer wrote:

> Douglas Otis wrote:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/ 
>> reskit/cnet/cncf_imp_afpf.mspx?mfr=true
>>
>
> No, that's GSS-TSIG which is not the same thing at all. Phil was  
> asking about TSIG. I have no idea what it has to do with  
> namedroppers. Rob Austein has a draft to modify the GSS-TSIG RFC  
> 3645 but I haven't seen it discussed here.

I believe the issue is related to the wildcard scheme being proposed  
per the subject line.  This scheme reuses an existing RR type.  This  
reuse was to avoid a new RR type for enabling an effect of a wildcard  
being placed below a prefix.  My understanding for the reuse was due  
to deployment concerns related to Windows.  The relevance can not be  
determined without knowing why it was asked.  The linked article  
refers to RFC3645 that updates RFC2845 or DNS RR TYPE 250.

-Doug