Subject: Re: question about "what is a legal name?"

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:23:43 +0900

Edward Lewis wrote:

> I've been saying that the name above is not legal, based on the words in 
> RFC 1034, section 4.3.3 that define wild cards.  One answer I have 
> received is that the above name is not a wild card, hence the 
> restrictions that no "*" appear in the <domain> there is not valid.

The text in 1034 allows for names like:

	_marid.*.foo.com

but not

	*.*.foo.com

nor

	_marid.*.*.foo.com

See below on why the latter is illegal.

> I think the intent in the specs is to not use *.foo.com. as a "wild 
> card".  From the definition of a wild card as "*.<domain without *>", I 
> think the server ought not synthesize from that record.

According to the explicit text of 1034, your guess is invalid.

According to 1034;

   The contents of the wildcard RRs follows the usual rules and formats for
   RRs.

the consequence of "_marid.*.foo.com" without explicit
"*.foo.com" is that the node "*.foo.com" does exist with
no data. NODATA will be answered to a query of "*.foo.com".

As 1034 says:

   A * label appearing in a query name has no special effect, but can be
   used to test for wildcards in an authoritative zone;

the implicit "*.foo.com" must be treated as wildcard with no data.

Does the behaviour satisfy requirements of the person in the MARID WG?

> what happens when some one adds, via dynamic update, the label
> "_marid" below that domain?

It has nothing to do with dynamic update. The result of dynamic update
will be that such a node had existed from the beginning.

							Masataka Ohta

--
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/>

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 22:49:52 -0400

>See below on why the latter is illegal.

I missed why the latter is illegal, given that the first is okay.

Do you mean that there can be only one "*" in a name?  And that only 
if it is the least significant label does the name cause synthesis?

>no data. NODATA will be answered to a query of "*.foo.com".

What if there is data at *.foo.com.?  Is _marid.*.foo.com still legal?

E.g.:

     *.foo.com.           MX   10 host1.foo.com.
     _marid.*.foo.com.    TXT  "something important"

>Does the behaviour satisfy requirements of the person in the MARID WG?

Dunno...

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

Even the voices inside my head are refusing to talk to me anymore.

---

From: Kevin Darcy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 23:03:27 -0400

Edward Lewis wrote:

> Do you mean that there can be only one "*" in a name? And that only if 
> it is the least significant label does the name cause synthesis?
>
>> According to 1034;
>>

I would think so. The existence of the _marid child should have no 
effect on the functioning of *.foo.com as a "default match", whether 
that match results in a wildcard synthesis, if one or more appropriate 
RRsets is present, or, if not present, just an early termination of the 
algorithm with a NODATA response.

- Kevin

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:02:22 +0900

> I missed why the latter is illegal, given that the first is okay.

I mean "_marid.*.*.foo.com" implies "*.*.foo.com" exist (with no data),
which is illegal.

> it is the least significant label does the name cause synthesis?

Yes.

> What if there is data at *.foo.com.?  Is _marid.*.foo.com still legal?

Yes.

							Masataka Ohta