On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:30 PM Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 3:37 PM Ray Bellis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 19/07/2018 15:07, Patrick McManus wrote: >> >> > Am I correct in saying that what you're getting at is not so much a wire >> > issue as a convention among configuration and implementations? i.e. >> > wildcards are synthesized - they aren't actually sent as responses that >> > clients use in some kind of short-cut kind of way? >> >> That's correct - wildcards are expanded on the DNS server, not by the >> client. >> > > That's true, but there also some more subtly here -- with DNSSEC, the > server also sends the wildcard label to allow the client to know that this > happened - this doesn't change the above argument, but is worth knowing... > So, I misspoke (or, more truthfully, misremembered!) - it is a bunch more complicated than that, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4592#section-4.7 for what actually happens (and thanks to Ray for calling me on it) W > W > > >> FWIW the same issue appears to arise with the current specification for >> carrying the ALTSVC information as a DNS RR, again because of its use of >> underscore prefix labels. >> >> Ray >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >> > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea > in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of > pants. > ---maf > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
