Re: [dnsext] Fwd: djb on NXDOMAIN/NODATA for non-terminals

Edward Lewis <> Thu, 31 March 2011 11:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445E428C14F for <>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.567
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6t5HFScOyOhv for <>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F4B3A6B33 for <>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Work-Laptop-2.local ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2VBwnUj086616; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:58:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from
Received: from [] by Work-Laptop-2.local (PGP Universal service); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:58:51 -0400
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Work-Laptop-2.local on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:58:51 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a06240801c9ba1b36f4c4@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <a06240806c9b7b2040e80@[]> <> <a06240807c9b7b5a6e892@[]> <> <a06240800c9b93e602208@[]> <>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:58:47 -0400
From: Edward Lewis <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Fwd: djb on NXDOMAIN/NODATA for non-terminals
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:57:13 -0000

At 11:53 +0100 3/31/11, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:

>If somebody could help me to understand which bit of RFC 1034-5 or succeeding
>documents says (or even hints at) the fallibility of multi-label names, I'd be
>especially interested, since so far I haven't been able to do it.  It would
>help me decide that much more firmly one way or the other; for now, I don't
>like the suggestion.  Maybe it's all about semantics, but I like things the
>way they are (in this regard). It's clearer and, for me, more logical and
>sensible, with no added gotchas.

Try reading RFC 4592.  It has a definition of what constitutes "existence."

I can see how all this is confusing and absurd.  It's all very 
Seinfeldian [0]. It's true, what does it matter you get in a response 
if there's no data to be had?  Nothing is nothing.  But the reason 
folks are so passionate about NXDOMAIN vs. NoError/0 anwer records is 
that other parts of the protocol are impacted.  The definition of the 
wildcard mechanism for one (that's what RFC 4592 refers to).  And the 
inference of caches on what exists is another (RFC 2308 & RFC 4304/5).

[0] From "The show, often 
described as being about "nothing"..."

>PS: Dan did in fact post that referenced message to his
>list.  I use tinydns, primarily, but am thinking about shuffling along to NSD.

Ahh, thanks.  I am not on that list.
Edward Lewis             
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

Me to infant son: "Waah! Waah! Is that all you can say?  Waah?"
Son: "Waah!"