[LLMNR] Conflict resolution

[Mika Liljeberg <mika.liljeberg@welho.com>]

Section 5 states:

Every responder that responds to a LLMNR query and/or dynamic update
request AND includes a UNIQUE record in the response:

   1. MUST verify that there is no other host within the scope of the
      LLMNR query propagation that can return a resource record
      for the same name, type and class.
   2. MUST NOT include a UNIQUE resource record in the
      response without having verified its uniqueness.

How does a responder know whether a particular RR that it owns is UNIQUE
or not? Looks like this attribute has to be manually configured for
every RR on every authoritative responder. Is this interpretation
correct?

I suppose an implementation can simply choose to not support cluster
names and just assert that every RR it owns is UNIQUE.

	MikaL


On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 02:42, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> In order to better track LLMNR issues, and ready the LLMNR draft for
> DNSEXT WG last call, we have created an LLMNR issues list:
> 
> http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/DNSEXT/llmnrissues.html
> 
> The LLMNR editors would like to encourage participants in the DNSEXT WG
> who have not yet read the LLMNR draft to do so ASAP, and email your issues
> in the format described on the Issues list, to namedroppers@ops.ietf.org,
> with a CC: to lmnr-editors@internaut.com.
> 
> The latest LLMNR draft is available at:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-13.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>

--
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/>