Re: [DNSOP] Where in a CNAME chain is the QNAME?

Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> Wed, 28 September 2016 02:08 UTC

Return-Path: <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
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 0230D12B054 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 fqT3f_5Rsozf for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x235.google.com (mail-qt0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC5AB12B047 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x235.google.com with SMTP id 38so16334682qte.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=OiQ7P/yO/6IvujPA8PD2lpoO8d3zAMJTwZQHt6FiRtQ=; b=KzwVffrRrcocg/ZnpUtZ+x6PcuGiclsavmnnps8/X9XUuClK9jYRz5WzmCz0W4U0G+ WWPL8xV4m/m4/qfIJ3BwPHHL9tAJNaeLhWQ1f1/O0P/TrEpcSKkJYaEwypufRXAH2X3G z3iJ+MfETaBH8uc1hSSIdqT3oRBPuoyEcNIflLdfZGZAMpWi2MMXCXBAbtSHh7KFxBIK SK53YWq+2VgqThOalIL009yY8058YaXQ9JOVuJ6wIy/EefCABqkjZpQht5NqsWHMNzsi 27uJx+E9gem3tA/C2oMOKhpTpGswS2deGU9nZ3LDwjozZ6wxiC2OpcvRkm1ZEsQeQ+Qn 7vwA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=OiQ7P/yO/6IvujPA8PD2lpoO8d3zAMJTwZQHt6FiRtQ=; b=cszhQsAijjSy7dCnZNN6yzRVkoZBLk1Lx550Gnclqb8CbdmadndBT6CvFUkpuJyGXj 1eMsd+C2RSzzcXp3CxQyvYAFQjSnsoYPMlETzEiVWWPBdF8dEgUjOVRpbFX/LjUY0RYS 6GSXf7OTeQUqZiYcZDkcp2sQvAc8p0zd9Kw8/sZcaD+nFAVC8ui5VXyLhd0tDTOaVbCG H8DaTK4IL/daUWZQTnqDX8fD9EF59Fh9aAmDEvPRHfGDQgF+2I2ycFS+BEvb/y7Hue02 YcJu9UhbX7eY7x1+6DVXn1yfx0hPA8QaHF+e7H4FDulmr0MuLlIUbQZk8XFVtgGh7OZW 5rKw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkhABzWvFsLY33yNhnbTMcHvQf3cU5iHLByE9ZgD1ma84tS+oWG/WCo7G8ezMlrHg==
X-Received: by 10.237.35.18 with SMTP id h18mr31920430qtc.149.1475028494893; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.14] (c-24-63-89-87.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.63.89.87]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o128sm2800932qkf.17.2016.09.27.19.08.13 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160923082232.6j2jlr4wqp2fxs56@nic.fr>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:08:08 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <21A17810-489E-460B-A93A-17100931A8B8@gmail.com>
References: <20160920161350.GA3288@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20160923082232.6j2jlr4wqp2fxs56@nic.fr>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/bGy_AKbCUaz06qdIgEkKyRMgang>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Where in a CNAME chain is the QNAME?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 02:08:18 -0000

Hi,

Strong objections to this answer, or can we call it done? 

ISTM that the avoidance of ambiguity for implementers is the key thing here, so I’m especially interested in hearing from anyone who’s not sure how to code this as written.

Thanks all for a good discussion, and the suggestion that defining QNAME might be suitable for draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis.

best,
Suzanne


> On Sep 23, 2016, at 4:22 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:13:50PM +0200,
> Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote 
> a message of 68 lines which said:
> 
>> This issue was spotted by Peter van Dijk. It is about
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05, recently approved by IESG. The
>> problem is the definition of "QNAME" when there is a CNAME chain.
> 
> OK, after reading the discussion, my opinion, as an author (but I'll
> of course defer the decision to the working group, the WG chairs, the
> RFC editor and the flying spaghetti monster):
> 
> The re-definition of QNAME by RFC 2308 is awkward and does not match
> the general usage, or the previous definitions. Therefore, I prefer to
> keep the "common sense" usage "QNAME is the owner name of the record
> in the Question Section". Which means that, in my example, the QNAME
> is "www.afnic.fr" and the current text of
> draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05 is correct.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop