Re: [lamps] CAA DNAME behavior is surprising
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 28 August 2017 19:00 UTC
Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6480C132D61 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 lgH99ZwbEqyM for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (www.examp1e.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::555:1212]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A83751329A9 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 9958 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2017 19:00:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 28 Aug 2017 19:00:22 -0000
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:00:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20170828190000.39762.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: spasm@ietf.org
Cc: agwa@andrewayer.name
In-Reply-To: <20170828100333.a0b21684ca41aae11edfb299@andrewayer.name>
Organization:
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/spasm/ztb6ZAy1-POG92lJic71MxpCP0U>
Subject: Re: [lamps] CAA DNAME behavior is surprising
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:00:28 -0000
In article <20170828100333.a0b21684ca41aae11edfb299@andrewayer.name> you write: >Should implementers of RFC 6844 follow the current wording - that is, >follow the target of the DNAME specified "at" the label X and do a CAA >lookup there? Am I really the only one who looked at that sentence and read its obvious correct meaning, names that a CNAME or DNAME redirects? R's, John PS: in the legal world, one of the fixed principles of statutory interpretation is that if a statement has one interpretation that is sensible and another that is absurd, you use the sensible one and don't waste time on the absurd one.
- [lamps] CAA DNAME behavior is surprising Andrew Ayer
- Re: [lamps] CAA DNAME behavior is surprising John Levine
- Re: [lamps] CAA DNAME behavior is surprising Andrew Ayer
- Re: [lamps] CAA DNAME behavior is surprising Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [lamps] CAA DNAME behavior is surprising Andrew Ayer
- Re: [lamps] CAA DNAME behavior is surprising John Levine