Re: [dnsext] was Re: historical question re WKS

Oops on-list...still all not that useful. ;)

At 12:27 -0500 3/7/12, Edward Lewis wrote:
>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 +1-571-434-5468
>
>2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!
>_______________________________________________
>dnsext mailing list
>dnsext@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext