Re: [dnsext] does C+D fail in current resolver?
Ondřej Surý <ondrej.sury@nic.cz> Wed, 25 August 2010 12:56 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21813A698B; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 05:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.493
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.207, BAYES_40=-0.185, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FQj75B-6+B+q; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 05:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8608C3A6995; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 05:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1OoFU0-000Ezd-Cs for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:53:36 +0000
Received: from [2001:1488:800:400::400] (helo=mail.nic.cz) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <ondrej.sury@nic.cz>) id 1OoFTx-000Ez5-Ko for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:53:33 +0000
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1488:ac14:1400:224:e8ff:fea9:f617] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:ac14:1400:224:e8ff:fea9:f617]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38BD37342DD for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:53:32 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4C75124B.6080703@nic.cz>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:53:31 +0200
From: Ondřej Surý <ondrej.sury@nic.cz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "namedroppers@ops.ietf.org" <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] does C+D fail in current resolver?
References: <482356091.17828@cnnic.cn>
In-Reply-To: <482356091.17828@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
List-Unsubscribe: the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
List-Archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
On 21.8.2010 03:52, Yao Jiankang wrote: > so according to the closed code provided by Paul, > either cname or dname will not be resolved correctly. > if you want to make c+d to work correctly, signaling is a MUST even if > the resolver is non-dnssec resolver. Yes, and I thought we already agreed on that. The draft on signaling is in: draft-sury-dnsext-cname-at-apex-00 It's very rough at the edges, uses incorrect RFCs etc., I'll publish better version soon, but you can get the basic idea. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý vedoucí výzkumu/Head of R&D department ------------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- Laboratoře CZ.NIC Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ tel:+420.222745110 fax:+420.222745112 -------------------------------------------
- [dnsext] does C+D fail in current resolver? Yao Jiankang
- Re: [dnsext] does C+D fail in current resolver? Ondřej Surý