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

Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws> Thu, 29 September 2016 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <edmonds@mycre.ws>
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 F37A512B12E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.218
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 pEAJll0CV1xn for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mycre.ws (mycre.ws [45.33.102.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66A4412B0FC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by chase.mycre.ws (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D81FE12C0E1D; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:01:43 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:01:43 -0400
From: Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20160929150143.q337eazfubz2act4@mycre.ws>
References: <20160920161350.GA3288@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20160923082232.6j2jlr4wqp2fxs56@nic.fr> <2C1851F8-E4D4-402D-9F0A-2C37D40167B0@kahlerlarson.org> <20160928213259.GE4192@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20160929055005.ritosc5cxnds6iyx@mycre.ws> <5ECA97D4-2753-4078-880A-17AE11AC97BA@vpnc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <5ECA97D4-2753-4078-880A-17AE11AC97BA@vpnc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/r58RCtXYM-Pil2SDZuKKn_QsKl0>
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: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:02:02 -0000

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Oddly, "owner name" is correct here. From RFC 1035, Section 3.2.1 which
> describes the format of resource records:

Compare that section to the nearly identical §4.1.3, which replaces this
sentence:

    All RRs have the same top level format shown below:

with:

    The answer, authority, and additional sections all share the same
    format: a variable number of resource records, where the number of
    records is specified in the corresponding count field in the header.
    Each resource record has the following format:

But, the "All RRs" part of §3.2.1 is still accurate, because an entry in
the question section is not a RR.

There are some other differences between §3.2.1 and §4.1.3, for instance
§3 uses "owner name" while §4 uses "domain name" to describe the NAME
field, and the infamous signed vs. unsigned definition of the TTL field.

-- 
Robert Edmonds