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

From: [email-masked] (Andreas Gustafsson)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:59:13 -0800 (PST)

Erik Nordmark writes:
> I've done the AD review of this document and I have some questions.
> 
>    To avoid such corruption, servers MUST NOT compress domain names
>    embedded in the RDATA of types that are class-specific or not well-
>    known.  This requirement was stated in RFC1123 without defining the
>    term "well-known"; it is hereby specified that only the RR types
>    defined in RFC1035 are to be considered "well-known".
> 
> The above seems to change the current standard behavior for
> SIG, NXT, and perhaps others. Is this the intent?

Yes.  RFC2065 explicitly allowed compression of names in SIG and NXT
records, and this is no longer allowed per the unknown-RRs draft.

As for "perhaps others", I could find one other case where an RR
specification explicitly allows compression: RFC2163 allows
compression in the PX records, which appears to be in direct conflict
with the RFC1035 statement that "Pointers can only be used for
occurances of a domain name where the format is not class specific"
since RFC2163 restricts the PX record to the IN class.

> If so the document should explicitly state this
> and also add an "updates RFC 2535" up front.

I will add this and "updates RFC2163".

>    For all other RR types, the canonical form is hereby changed 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.
> 
> It would be useful to explicitly list the RR types to which this change
> applies.

That's not really practical since there is more than 65000 of them.
While you could attempt to list the currently allocated post-RFC2915
types, such a list would soon become inaccurate as additional types
are allocated.

> Nits (by themselves not necessitating an updated I-D at this point in time):
> The references should be split into normative and non-normative.

Will do.  It appears there have been quite a number of changes to the
I-D requirements since the initial publication of the draft...

> A boilerplate IPR section should be added.

Can you please point me to a document describing this requirement and
the form of the required boilerplate?
-- 
Andreas Gustafsson, [email-masked]

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