On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:13:50PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> wrote a message of 68 lines which said:
> This issue was spotted by Peter van Dijk. It is about > draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05, recently approved by IESG. The > problem is the definition of "QNAME" when there is a CNAME chain. OK, after reading the discussion, my opinion, as an author (but I'll of course defer the decision to the working group, the WG chairs, the RFC editor and the flying spaghetti monster): The re-definition of QNAME by RFC 2308 is awkward and does not match the general usage, or the previous definitions. Therefore, I prefer to keep the "common sense" usage "QNAME is the owner name of the record in the Question Section". Which means that, in my example, the QNAME is "www.afnic.fr" and the current text of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05 is correct. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
