[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Erik Nordmark writes:
> To me it makes sense stating instead:
> 
>    This document specifies that for all other RR types, the canonical form
>    is such that no downcasing of embedded domain names takes place.  The owner
>    name is always set to lower case according to the DNS rules for
>    character comparisons, regardless of the RR type.

OK - I still don't quite see why the word "changed" is so
objectionable, but I have no problem with making this change.

> and then add a note saying that
> 
>    Note that after RFC 2931 there has been no RR types defined which have
>    an embedded domain name.

This is exactly the kind of statement regarding "defined RRs" I have
already repeatedly objected to adding.  It is true today, but will
become false as soon as additional RR types with embedded domain names
are defined, and would cause nothing but confusion to an implementor
reading it ten years from no.  Such a statement does not belong in an
archival document.

>    It is expected that future definitions of
>    RR types will explicitly state that there is no downcasing of embedded
>    domain names as part of DNSSEC canonicalization.

That is not my expectation.  There is a precedent for explicit
statements regarding the applicability of *compression*, but that is
only because RFC1035 was so ambiguous about where compression was
allowed that it had to be specified in the individual RR type
definitions (and even then some RR definitions interpreted RFC1035
differently from others).  In the case of DNSSEC canonicalization, I
hope the specification will be complete and unambiguous so that we
don't have to resort to that kind of workaround.

> In terms on text suggestions, I don't know if I've seen suggested
> text that makes it clear that the document changes the compression
> rule for SIG and NXT. For the benefits of clarity it makes sense
> having that paragraph point at the paragraphs in 2535 that are
> changed.

Can do.
-- 
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/>