Subject: Re: wildcards vs. RR types, was Faux wildcards

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:15:28 +0000

John Levine wrote:
>>>There's no need for "new" wildcards.
>>
>>I'm not (yet) sure whether "new" wildcards is a protocol change, or
>>an "ease of use config option" on servers (i.e. an application change)
> 
> 
> It's only a protocol change if you use AXFR or IXFR to synchronize
> servers.  It doesn't affect normal DNS client-server interactions at
> all.

Or if you use DNSSEC.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

--
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: Alex Bligh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:15:45 +0000

>> servers.  It doesn't affect normal DNS client-server interactions at

Even then they aren't a protocol change if they are essentially
synthesis by macro expansion (or whatever), are generated prior
to signing, and can be decomposed into a combination of existing
wildcards and existing non-wildcard RRs (those are certainly
sufficient conditions, they may not all be necessary conditions).

Alex