In message <[email protected]>, Stephane
Bortzmeyer writes:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 08:59:32AM -0700,
> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote
> a message of 45 lines which said:
>
> > Title : DNS Terminology
> > Authors : Paul Hoffman
> > Andrew Sullivan
> > Kazunori Fujiwara
> > Filename : draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-05.txt
>
> The new definition of QNAME describes as equivalent two conflicting
> definitions, the original one, in RFC 1034, and the one of RFC 2308,
> which seems used only by this RFC. IMHO, we should keep only the RFC
> 1034 definition.
RFC 1034
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.
Note "QNAME" refers the the name *after* CNAME substituion when you
are following the process as described in 4.3.2. Algorithm.
There is no confict between 1034 and 2308. Only a failure to
examine all uses of QNAME in 1034.
Mark
> I filed an errata against RFC 2308
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4983>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
