There is no need to resort to doctrinal arguments about MUST/SHOULD, or
imagine that the RFC6844 tail can wag the RFC1035 dog.
Mark A's objection really points a fundamental contradiction in RFC6844
itself.
RFC6844:
5.1.1. Canonical Presentation Format
The canonical presentation format of the CAA record is:
[snip]
Tag: Is a non-zero sequence of US-ASCII letters and numbers in lower
case.
[I assume "non-zero" really means "non-empty"]
is incompatible with the text in 5.1:
Tag: The property identifier, a sequence of US-ASCII characters.
Tag values MAY contain US-ASCII characters 'a' through 'z', 'A'
through 'Z', and the numbers 0 through 9. Tag values SHOULD NOT
contain any other characters. Matching of tag values is case
insensitive.
Tag values submitted for registration by IANA MUST NOT contain any
characters other than the (lowercase) US-ASCII characters 'a'
through 'z' and the numbers 0 through 9.
which not only appears to imply the existence of two distinct species of
tag identifiers, but has the bizarre consequence that not all tag
identifiers are exactly representable using the canonical format prescribed
by section 5.1.1
The same form of words, or at least compatible words, should be used in
both places. RFC6844 offers no justification for case folding, so
specifying exact matching would make the whole issue go away.
Dick Franks
________________________
On 10 March 2016 at 20:34, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I believe the erratra below was rejected incorrectly.
>
>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
