IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DNAME (and CNAME) vs DNSSEC (Was: [dnsext] Reminder: two WGLC closing in one week)

Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz> Wed, 24 September 2008 10:19 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF743A6AC6; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 cZ6Dmfs9sPJ2; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E12BD3A689C; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KiRFs-000BOR-VS for namedroppers-data@psg.com; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:05:56 +0000
Received: from [66.92.146.20] (helo=stora.ogud.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>) id 1KiRFi-000BMn-8H for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:05:51 +0000
Received: from [10.122.105.108] (gatt.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.6]) by stora.ogud.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8OA5drR080163; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:05:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a06240802c4ffc1290829@[10.122.105.108]>
In-Reply-To: <20080923133133.GA18300@commandprompt.com>
References: <20080923072354.BB38011402C@mx.isc.org> <200809230756.m8N7uHdg075258@drugs.dv.isc.org> <20080923133133.GA18300@commandprompt.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:05:23 +0200
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@commandprompt.com>
From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
Subject: Re: DNAME (and CNAME) vs DNSSEC (Was: [dnsext] Reminder: two WGLC closing in one week)
Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 10.20.30.4
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>

Option 1 or 2.  I'd have to reread the sections again to know if I 
think there is an issue.  But this topic belongs to the dname-bis 
document.

At 9:31 -0400 9/23/08, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>Dear colleagues,
>
>Given the discussion between Mike StJohns and Mark Andrews on how to
>handle DNAME (or CNAME) chains in a DNSSEC context, it seems to me we
>have three choices:
>
>1.  Do nothing.  The documents are clear enough as they are.
>
>2.  Clarify this behaviour in the 2672bis-dname document.
>
>3.  Clarify the behaviour, but in the dnssec-bis-updates document.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Never confuse activity with progress.  Activity pays more.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email