Subject: DNAME Issue 4.14 "Corner Cases"

From: Scott Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:46:44 -0500

Issue 4.14 Small Corner Cases is still open

original message:
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg01344.html

part 1 is resolved in the -01 version of the draft.

part 2 (synthesized CNAMEs too long) open
   Editors realize an example will help here and
   should appear in -02 version of draft

part 3 (queries for synthesized CNAMEs in caches) open

currently in draft:
    Servers MUST be able to answer a query for a
    synthesized CNAME.  An answer containing the
    synthesized CNAME cannot contain an error (since
    a CNAME has been followed), as per RFC 1034
    CNAME rules.

part 4 (DNAME-CNAME loops) addressed, considered resolved?

Mark A's response to part 5 (loading zones below a DNAME)
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg01362.html

   discussion:  Tone it down to a "SHOULD NOT" load the zone?
   also, should dynamic update be discussed?

part 6 (caches storing data below a DNAME) -
   resolution to have caches re-synthesize CNAMEs from DNAME. From
   Section 3.4 of the -01 draft:

    Caches MUST NOT allow data to be cached below a DNAME.
    Except CNAME records or perhaps NSEC3 records and their
    signatures.  CNAME records below a DNAME MUST be re-
    synthesized from the DNAME, or checked against the DNAME
    record before sending them out.  This improves
    consistency of the DNAME and CNAME records below it.

Scott & Wouter
DNAME clarify draft editors
	
-- 
----------------------------------------
Scott Rose            Computer Scientist
NIST
ph: +1 301-975-8439
[email-masked]

http://www-x.antd.nist.gov/dnssec
http://www.dnssec-deployment.org/
-----------------------------------------

--
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/>