Subject: RE: Any decision on wildcard CNAME ?

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:05:57 -0700

> Then I am probably missing something. Please enlighten us on what
> algoritme to use to prove correctness or non-existence of an RR
> derived from expansion of a wildcard CNAME with its current
definition?

Yup. How is that different from a load balancing DNS making up records
on the fly? Or a server programmed to synthesize PTR records? If you
cannot see the problem on the wire, then you cannot rule out the
behavior.

Now, there are two ways were you might see the behavior "on the wire":
in a zone transfer, and in a DNSSEC computation. Whatever rule is
written can only be written in one of these two contexts.

-- Christian Huitema 

--
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: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:35:13 +0100

I'm with Masatake Ohta and Mark Andrews - define it to work.

Regards,
Tony Milton

Internet
[email-masked]@ops.ietf.org - 11/10/2003 21:13

Sent by:    [email-masked]

To:    namedroppers

cc:

Subject:    Any decision on wildcard CNAME ?

I'm trying to work out what the WG decision is on wildcard CNAME
so a new draft can get submitted sometime soon...

As best I can tell, Masatake Ohta and Mark Andrews favour simply
defining it to work (in the full and naturally expected way).

Rob Austein and Olaf Kolkman seemed to prefer simply defining it to
be illegal (or undefined, or something essentially equivalent).

I, and I think some others (but I don't remember the names) want the
thing fixed, but I don't care which of the above ways.

Randy Bush and Paul Vixie seemed to want to leave the DNS with inconsistent
results possible.   Or did the last time they wrote.

Large numbers of other people who I know read this list haven't
expressed an opinion at all.   Please do - without more input, there
isn't going to be any way to come to any kind of conclusion on this.

kre

This message and any attachments (the "message") is
intended solely for the addressees and is confidential. 
If you receive this message in error, please delete it and 
immediately notify the sender. Any use not in accord with 
its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole 
or partial, is prohibited except formal approval. The internet
can not guarantee the integrity of this message. 
BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not 
therefore be liable for the message if modified. 

                ---------------------------------------------

Ce message et toutes les pieces jointes (ci-apres le 
"message") sont etablis a l'intention exclusive de ses 
destinataires et sont confidentiels. Si vous recevez ce 
message par erreur, merci de le detruire et d'en avertir 
immediatement l'expediteur. Toute utilisation de ce 
message non conforme a sa destination, toute diffusion 
ou toute publication, totale ou partielle, est interdite, sauf 
autorisation expresse. L'internet ne permettant pas 
d'assurer l'integrite de ce message, BNP PARIBAS (et ses
filiales) decline(nt) toute responsabilite au titre de ce 
message, dans l'hypothese ou il aurait ete modifie.