IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Additional section processing for DNAME - question for WG

JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isc.org> Wed, 12 January 2011 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei@isc.org>
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 5C6BC3A6A7E for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:18:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 P8rg96pnGsJj for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:18:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AFD63A6A75 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:18:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 910545F984C; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:20:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jinmei@isc.org)
Received: from jmb.jinmei.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:65:daa2:5eff:fe93:e92c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76BB9216C3F; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:20:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jinmei@isc.org)
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:20:05 -0800
Message-ID: <m2zkr6ylne.wl%jinmei@isc.org>
From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isc.org>
To: "Rose, Scott W." <scott.rose@nist.gov>
In-Reply-To: <606C034D-452F-4180-B21C-40D5BB5D0971@nist.gov>
References: <m2zkrc1f2u.wl%jinmei@isc.org> <a06240800c9510b2218ce@[10.31.200.129]> <m2fwsz29m7.wl%jinmei@isc.org> <a06240801c952c792a0d1@[192.168.128.75]> <m27hea1qya.wl%jinmei@isc.org> <19757.26347.948711.659315@guava.gson.org> <606C034D-452F-4180-B21C-40D5BB5D0971@nist.gov>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/22.1 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: "dnsext@ietf.org" <dnsext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Additional section processing for DNAME - question for WG
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: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:18:03 -0000

At Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:06:20 -0500,
"Rose, Scott W." <scott.rose@nist.gov> wrote:

> If the consensus is "no", should it just be dropped completely, or should it be replaced with something stating (rough text):
> 
> "The DNAME RR does not cause any additional section processing.  This is a change from RFC 2762."
> 
> Because this is another change from the original DNAME spec. 

I don't have a strong opinion, but if there'll be a "changes from
RFC2762" section in the final bis RFC, I'd simply remove the text from
the body and note the fact in that section.

BTW, not a strong opinion again, but I agree with dropping the
statement about additional section processing in some way because the
text didn't make sense to me and I cannot think of any existing
deployment that relies on it (although, as with any compatibility
related topic, I understand such a view could often be too
optimistic).

---
JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email