Subject: clarification on resolved DNAME issue 4.4

From: Scott Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 09:56:33 -0500

Clarification:  Issue 4.4 resolution is incorrect.

 >
 > Issue 4.4 and 4.13  Target name in DNAME RDATA should be canonical?
 >     Added to -01 draft, the target name must be canonical,
 >     brining it in line with NS and MX RDATA target names.
 >

Should actually state (as it does in draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-01)

   NS and MX records require that their target RDATA
   name is canonical. Names that fall under a DNAME owner
   name are not canonical.
   Therefore those target names must not exist under a
   DNAME owner name. See

http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg01361.html

   Related: target names in the RDATA of a DNAME may or may not be
   canonical.

I hope this clears things up

Scott & Wouter

--
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: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:56:55 -0500

>   Therefore those target names must not exist under a

I am tripping over the terminology.

Let's say "foo.bar.example." owns a DNAME RR.

Does "ns.foo.bar.example." "*exist* under a DNAME owner name"?

As opposed to, if the target of the above mentioned DNAME is 
"bar.example.com.", "ns.bar.example.com." does not exist under a 
DNAME?

Therefore I should not have

      oatwillie.example.net. NS ns.foo.bar.example.

but I can have

      oatwillie.example.net. NS ns.bar.example.com.

right?
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Dessert - aka Service Pack 1 for lunch.

---

From: Wouter Wijngaards <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:54:33 +0100

> Does "ns.foo.bar.example." "*exist* under a DNAME owner name"?

Yes, that name is below the DNAME owner name.

> "bar.example.com.", "ns.bar.example.com." does not exist under a DNAME?

Well it does not fall under the owner name of the DNAME you cite above.
If I assume there is not another DNAME owner name above
ns.bar.example.com, then that is correct.

>      oatwillie.example.net. NS ns.bar.example.com.

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

Best regards,
   Wouter