IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Rose, Scott W." <scott.rose@nist.gov> Wed, 12 January 2011 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.rose@nist.gov>
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 7831628C126 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:04:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.255
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.344, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 AOJvHHpKiWMU for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:04:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.nist.gov (rimp1.nist.gov [129.6.16.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA8928C123 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:04:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from WSXGHUB2.xchange.nist.gov (wsxghub2.nist.gov [129.6.18.19]) by smtp.nist.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p0CF6Qxv004485 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:06:26 -0500
Received: from MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov ([fe80::d479:3188:aec0:cb66]) by WSXGHUB2.xchange.nist.gov ([129.6.18.19]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:06:15 -0500
From: "Rose, Scott W." <scott.rose@nist.gov>
To: "dnsext@ietf.org" <dnsext@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:06:20 -0500
Thread-Topic: Additional section processing for DNAME - question for WG
Thread-Index: AcuyakHET5u9E41BQpaTgSlL/AH2bA==
Message-ID: <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>
In-Reply-To: <19757.26347.948711.659315@guava.gson.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-NIST-MailScanner-From: scott.rose@nist.gov
Subject: [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 15:04:13 -0000

Based on the discussion, is there any reason to keep the text below?  

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. 


Scott.  

On Jan 12, 2011, at 3:31 AM, Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
> 
> So, to summarize, I think the following text in the draft makes
> no sense, serves no useful purpose, and should be deleted:
> 
>   The DNAME RR causes type NS additional section processing.  This
>   refers to action at step 6 of the server algorithm outlined in
>   section 3.2.
> 
> -- 
> Andreas Gustafsson, gson@araneus.fi
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

===================================
Scott Rose
NIST
scottr@nist.gov
+1 301-975-8439
Google Voice: +1 571-249-3671
http://www.dnsops.gov/
===================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email