Subject: Re: update of wcard submitted

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:39:17 +0000

doing a document recovery intervention and this came up.... :)

	Internet Experiment Note 116 -  Internet Name Server
	August 1979 - Jon Postel

	has an extensive treatment of wildcards.   If you wnat a copy
	I'll be happy to post it.  Granted, this predates the DNS...

--bill

--
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: Roy Badami <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:02:03 +0100

bmanning> 	has an extensive treatment of wildcards.  If you wnat
    bmanning> a copy I'll be happy to post it.  Granted, this predates
    bmanning> the DNS...

Many IEN's (including this one) are available on RFC Editor's FTP
site:

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/ien/ien116.txt

	-roy

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:57:34 -0400

>	I'll be happy to post it.  Granted, this predates the DNS...

To quote a friend, Bill, "Don't *make* me hurt you!"

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

"Now under neu management"

---

From: Alex Bligh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:14:06 +0100

Ed,

--On 25 October 2004 10:50 -0400 Edward Lewis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I suppose it's debate over whether this is an strict update of 1034 or is
> an update on the concept of (1034:) wildcards.

You made it pretty clear in the draft you were NOT intending to update
(read: 'obselete') RFC 1034. If you were trying to do this, I think
the draft is too chatty etc. I proposed a pile of changes which I backed
out when I realized what you were trying to do (or thought I had).

What I *thought* you were trying to do was issue a clarifying document
detailing how wildcards should work in RFC1034. It is not designed
(as far as I can see) to be a change of protocol to 1034 (or only
the minimum change necessary to disambiguate it). Therefore I see
no reason which you shouldn't add DS etc. to the draft, and make
it clear for DNSSECbis etc.

If you were trying to update RFC1034, I'd think differently (i.e.
I'd drop the word update entirely and use the word "clarify").

Alex

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:09:53 +0700

Date:        Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:50:48 -0400
    From:        Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <a06110401bda2c0a1105f@[192.168.1.100]>

  | Mostly, I wanted to keep the draft "chatty" because 
  | this is supposed to be a clarificiation and not a "dry" specification 
  | (countering some recommendations from Robert).

I haven't had a chance to read the new one yet (and am not currently
connected, so I can't even fetch it - didn't know it existed till I saw
this message) - but this I suspect means that we differ over what
"clarification" means.

I take it to indicate a tightly written doc which is very precise, and
makes absolutely clear any doubtful aspects of the specification being
clarified.

I would contrast that to an "explanation" which would be just fine as a
chatty doc - where the purpose is to explain why the world is the way it
is, so people understand the reasoning.

While the latter is a fine thing to have, it isn't what I think is really
needed here - that is, it isn't the crucial requirement.

  | I guess I do have one more headache - whether or not to discuss DS 
  | and NSEC types at the parent.

Is there anything about them, given their normal processing (that is,
as they are currently specified to be processed) that in any way differs
from, or complicates, the wildcard clarification?   I wouldn't have
expected so - sire they (well, DS particularly) are "different" when
it comes to normal DNS message processing, but I wouldn't have thought
that they'd affect the wildcard processing in any very peculiar way.

  | I suppose it's debate over whether this is an strict update of 1034 
  | or is an update on the concept of (1034:) wildcards.

It needs to be a clarification of the DNS as it is defined.  But it is
just a clarification, not a re-specification of everything (it isn't DNS').

kre

ps: [email-masked] said:
   | Internet Experiment Note 116 -  Internet Name Server
   | 	August 1979 - Jon Postel
   | 	has an extensive treatment of wildcards. 

I don't have a copy of the IEN's on my laptop either, so I can't go read
that (again - I'm sure I have in the past) - but I'd use care making any
use or reference at all to pre-1034 DNS related stuff, other than perhaps
to explain the historical environment (which I don't think is appropriate
in a clarifications doc).   Even 882/883 are quite different than 1034/5
when it comes to wildcards - this is an area that was changed during DNS
development.