IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] CNAME chain length limits

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 28 May 2020 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A41573A0DD0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 17:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL_HDRS_LCASE=1.999, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yzq0JrVPCLp4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 17:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33AE53A0DCE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2020 17:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:59598) by ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1je60V-000Vcg-MU (Exim 4.92.3) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 28 May 2020 01:02:47 +0100
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 01:02:47 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: dagon <dagon@sudo.sh>
cc: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>, dnsop@ietf.org, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200527200614.GC3582@sudo.sh>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2005280101240.18104@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2005271341530.35268@ary.qy> <20200527180846.GA51895@isc.org> <20200527200614.GC3582@sudo.sh>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/XZLpvOK9NvFkfJZCwQCxn-9bmnc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] CNAME chain length limits
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 00:02:55 -0000

dagon <dagon@sudo.sh> wrote:
>
>   -- Tests for ("improper") horizontal vs. vertical CNAMEs.  Some
>      recursive speakers fail; some complain ("BAD (HORIZONTAL)
>      REFERRAL", but answer), and some follow without complaint.

Can you explain what these are, please?

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Forth, Tyne, Dogger: Variable mainly south 2 to 4. Smooth or slight. Mainly
fair. Good, occasionally poor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email