Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-03.txt

"George Barwood" <> Mon, 25 April 2011 23:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA4AE064A for <>; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.319
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wh-EbNSFGiWx for <>; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 173F4E062A for <>; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (InterMail vM. 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:57:12 +0100
Received: from [] (helo=GeorgeLaptop) by with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <>) id 1QEVeS-0003Ll-JU; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:57:12 +0100
Message-ID: <6995342773AA4DDC9ED528F8F9D4260F@local>
From: George Barwood <>
To: Andrew Sullivan <>,
References: <> <>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:57:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090
X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=JvdXmxIgLJv2/GthKqHpGJEEHukvLcvELVXUanXFreg= c=1 sm=0 a=id-P28asLW8A:10 a=3NElcqgl2aoA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=_dgnq-mfAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=sjB2Ew0Nwv7_d0XMeo8A:9 a=Y7khFayUcjCnNCpy7OwA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=BZcC-Fvy4-IA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=M21Pq8O4EmU5IUsu:21 a=-91o9eDQ9maCiybG:21 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117
Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:57:22 -0000

I have read the draft and support it being published.

The draft says

"[RFC1035] unambiguously states that the AA bit is to be set based on
   whether the server providing the answer with the first owner name in
   the answer section is authoritative."

However what RFC1035 actually says is

"Authoritative Answer - this bit is valid in responses,
and specifies that the responding name server is an
authority for the domain name in question section.
Note that the contents of the answer section may have
multiple owner names because of aliases.  The AA bit
corresponds to the name which matches the query name, or
the first owner name in the answer section."

where the meaning of the last sentence is not entirely clear. 

For NoData responses, the answer section is empty. 
With DNAME, the first record in the answer section may not
match the query name if the DNAME record is output first
( the DNAME RFC is not explicit on the order AFAICS ).

So I suggest it's best to just ignore the last sentence from RFC 1035
and refer to the server being authoritative for the name in the
question section, i.e. 

"[RFC1035] states that the AA bit is to be set based on whether
the server is an authority for the domain name in the question section."


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Sullivan" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-03.txt

> Dear colleagues,
> A reminder that this LC is expiring in two days.
> A
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:10:32AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>> This message starts a two-week WGLC on the draft
>> draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-03.txt.  While we did not formally
>> take the step of adopting that I-D as a WG document, it is
>> sufficiently related to the topic of RFC2672bis that your chairs
>> believe it should be processed at the same time.
>> Please review the draft.  If you support publication, please state as
>> much on the list.  If you are opposed to publication, please state
>> that on the list as well.  It is more helpful to have your reasons for
>> your position as part of your statement.  
>> According to the usual DNSEXT convention, we require at least five
>> reviews in favour of publication in order to proceed.  Five supportive
>> reviewers is a necessary but not sufficient condition for publication
>> (i.e. evidence of significant opposition counts against a measure of
>> rough consensus).
>> The WGLC will end on 2011-04-27 at 21:00 UTC.
>> Best regards,
>> Andrew (as document shepherd)
>> -- 
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> Shinkuro, Inc.
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list