On 26 Sep 2016, at 0:33, Peter van Dijk wrote:
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.
This seems like a very limited view of RFC 1034. RFC 1034 actually
defines QNAME in Section 3.7.1:
3.7.1. Standard queries
A standard query specifies a target domain name (QNAME), query type
(QTYPE), and query class (QCLASS) and asks for RRs which match.
Further, the usage in Section 4.3.2 does not say that the QNAME is the
last name in the chain, just that the algorithm itself repeats with a
new value for QNAME:
If the data at the node is a CNAME, and QTYPE doesn't
match CNAME, copy the CNAME RR into the answer section
of the response, change QNAME to the canonical name in
the CNAME RR, and go back to step 1.
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.
I'm quite concerned about the assertion that RFC 4035 relies on RFC
2038's definition. QNAME is only mentioned in Section 4.5 and 4.7 there,
and I don't see how those usages indicate that it is the last name in a
chain. Can you clarify?
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
