Re: [dnsext] errata on RFC1034 for recursive aliasing and name based diffrentiation
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Fri, 04 March 2011 22:21 UTC
Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97FE53A6869 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:21:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w8DZjxqsyeRR for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:21:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8658C3A6784 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:21:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 5352 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2011 22:37:25 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 4 Mar 2011 22:37:25 -0000
Message-ID: <4D7165EC.5090904@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 07:21:32 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsext@ietf.org
References: <20110227191542.6824.qmail@joyce.lan> <335963D7-3440-45E6-843C-38F419462792@cisco.com> <4D6C3FD3.7010801@ucd.ie> <20110303114148.A360FB98E2E@drugs.dv.isc.org> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1103031148130.14985@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4D703A35.9080207@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4D705952.6000409@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <20110304120348.GE16012@shinkuro.com> <4D70EEF7.8030506@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <20110304144502.GD16703@shinkuro.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110304144502.GD16703@shinkuro.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dnsext] errata on RFC1034 for recursive aliasing and name based diffrentiation
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 22:21:20 -0000
Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> For example? > > I've been led to believe, at least, that there are mail servers that > are grouchy about this. For example? > Certainly, I know mail implementers who are > grouchy about it. It means that they are grouchy because they must support it, as RFC 1034 requires so. The issue is classified merely as a minor issue even at the time when RFC974 was written (mail routing was a lot more complex than today): Note that the algorithm to delete irrelevant RRs breaks if LOCAL has a alias and the alias is listed in the MX records for REMOTE. (E.g. REMOTE has an MX of ALIAS, where ALIAS has a CNAME of LOCAL). This can be avoided if aliases are never used in the data section of MX RRs. And the situation today, by Tony Finch, is: > RFC 821 is thorougly obsolete. In particular the canonicalization > requirements that existed in the 1980s were relaxed in the 1990s and no > longer apply. So, my question is: Where is an example for your statement? Masataka Ohta
- [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasing-re… Internet-Drafts
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Ted Hardie
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Doug Barton
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Doug Barton
- Re: [dnsext] I-DAction:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasing… George Barwood
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Alex Bligh
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… John Levine
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Alex Bligh
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Dan Schlitt
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Paul Vixie
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Alex Bligh
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Alex Bligh
- [dnsext] How to bring discussion to a close (was:… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Niall O'Reilly
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Alex Bligh
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Niall O'Reilly
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Niall O'Reilly
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Alex Bligh
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Niall O'Reilly
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Tony Finch
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Tony Finch
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Tony Finch
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Tony Finch
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Tony Finch
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Alex Bligh
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Masataka Ohta
- [dnsext] errata on RFC1034 for recursive aliasing… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [dnsext] errata on RFC1034 for recursive alia… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [dnsext] errata on RFC1034 for recursive alia… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Niall O'Reilly
- Re: [dnsext] errata on RFC1034 for recursive alia… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [dnsext] errata on RFC1034 for recursive alia… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] errata on RFC1034 for recursive alia… Paul Vixie
- Re: [dnsext] errata on RFC1034 for recursive alia… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [dnsext] errata on RFC1034 for recursive alia… Brian Dickson
- Re: [dnsext] errata on RFC1034 for recursive alia… John Levine
- Re: [dnsext] errata on RFC1034 for recursive alia… Masataka Ohta
- [dnsext] pricing for equivalent localized domain … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [dnsext] pricing for equivalent localized dom… John Levine
- Re: [dnsext] errata on RFC1034 for recursive alia… Brian Dickson
- Re: [dnsext] pricing for equivalent localized dom… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [dnsext] errata on RFC1034 for recursive alia… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Brian Dickson
- Re: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasin… Doug Barton