IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 09 September 2018 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 BACC3130DDA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Sep 2018 14:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_PASS=-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 BwWHTJa-MQHO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Sep 2018 14:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 171C0127AC2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Sep 2018 14:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 68475 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2018 21:49:59 -0000
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 09 Sep 2018 21:49:59 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id F010C200425191; Sun, 9 Sep 2018 23:49:58 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2018 23:49:58 +0200
Message-Id: <20180909214958.F010C200425191@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: msj@nthpermutation.com
In-Reply-To: <CANeU+ZDMLxpS1VLCunM6DRmkLqtt521Q+QSHwdhvMZ-+eGqSMA@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/r5O3F3mVQJAMKpnXInF1Nu_tam8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft
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: Sun, 09 Sep 2018 21:50:03 -0000

In article <CANeU+ZDMLxpS1VLCunM6DRmkLqtt521Q+QSHwdhvMZ-+eGqSMA@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Actually, 5.2 suggests that a master  file (not zone) should contain a
>single class and single SOA record.  That’s not the same thing as limiting
>a zone to a single class AFAICT.

(catching up)

NS records are class specific so, except maybe at the root, a zone
with multiple classes doesn't make any sense. There'd be no way to
find the records in any class that didn't match the NS.  RFC 1034 says
that by covention the parallel class namespaces are all the same, but
there was never anything enforcing that.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email