[dnsext] was Re: historical question re WKS

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

off-list...because it's not all that useful a reply

Generally I know DNS history, but for this I don't.  I'd say that 
1035 implies there should be only one per IP/protocol from this in 
3.4.2:

"The WKS record is used to describe the well known services supported by
a particular protocol on a particular internet address."

Admittedly, that isn't a smoking gun, but it does talk about 
"particular" protocol and address.  You've read the rest.  No other 
hint.  I'd chalk this up to the poor documentation native to RFCs.

I'd bug Vixie directly if you want to know.

At 14:39 +0000 3/7/12, Tony Finch wrote:
>RFC 2136 specifies some odd special case handling of WKS records, to
>prevent a name from having more than one WKS record for a given IP address
>and protocol pair. Where did this requirement come from? I can't find
>anything along those lines in RFC 1035.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis             
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at [phone]

2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext