Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt

[gson@nominum.com (Andreas Gustafsson)]

Erik Nordmark writes:
> I'm specifically concerned about the statement that unknown-rrs
> changes something without being specific about what defined RRs it
> is changing.

And I'm concerned about the use of terms like "defined RRs" and
"existing RRs" since their meaning changes over time.  The draft
already precisely specifies which RRs use which canonicalization rule;
talking about "defined RRs" would be irrelevant and only confuse the
matter, especially for someone reading the RFC ten years from now.

> > Assuming the list of RR type assignments at
> > <http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters> is complete, there is
> > currently exactly one post-RFC2931 RR type, the APL record defined in
> > RFC3123, but the APL RR does not contain any embedded domain names and
> > is therefore unaffected by the canonicalization change.  In other
> > words, the impact of this change on existing implementations is zero.
> 
> Then it makes sense stating this in unknown-rrs as it *creating a new
> rule* that downcasing canocalization of embedded domain names is not performed
> for newly created RR types

How is this different from what the draft says now?  Could you suggest
a wording which better captures "creating a new rule"?

> (and perhaps add the list of the defined
> RR types that have embedded domain names where downcasing canonicalization 
> is performed),

There is already such a list:

  "the domain names embedded in RRs of type NS, MD, MF, CNAME, SOA, MB,
  MG, MR, PTR, HINFO, MINFO, MX, HINFO, RP, AFSDB, RT, SIG, PX, NXT,
  NAPTR, KX, SRV, DNAME, and A6 are converted to lower case according
  to the DNS rules for character comparisons"

> instead of as current stating as a *change* to any existing RRs.

I'm still not sure how you get that impression.  The draft does not
talk about a "changing RRs", it talks about "changing the canonical
form".  Also, it does not talk about "existing RRs", but of "RR types
defined in RFC2931 or earlier" and "other RR types".  Would changing
the text "all other RR types" into "post-RFC2931 RR types" make it
clearer which RRs the new canonical form applies to?
-- 
Andreas Gustafsson, gson@nominum.com

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>