Hello,
On 23 Sep 2016, at 10:22, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:13:50PM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> 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.
2308 does not “redefine” QNAME. It clarifies that the usage in 1034
4.3.2 is the definition we use in RFCs. 1035 4.1(.2) does not conflict
with this; the QNAME there is just the initial QNAME.
Many other RFCs need 2308: 2874, 4035, 4343, 4592, 4470, 4471, 5074,
5155, 6147, 6672 and most likely several others rely on the 2308
definition of QNAME. Without 2308, each of these RFCs would need extra
text such as the text your draft has now. It is simply not necessary.
Kind regards,
--
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
