Subject: [dnsext] Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-20

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 22:30:46 +1100

Section 5.2 paragraph 2 (below) is just plain wrong

   A server MUST ignore a dynamic update message that attempts to add a
   non-DNAME/CNAME RR at a name that already has a DNAME RR associated
   with that name.  Otherwise, replace the DNAME RR with the DNAME (or
   CNAME) update RR.  This is similar behavior to dynamic updates to an
   owner name of a CNAME RR [RFC2136].

The only additional restriction on DNAME is that is it to be treated
as a singleton.  i.e. Adding a DNAME removes the exiting DNAME.
Apart from that it should be treated like any other record as far
as UPDATE is concerned.

You can add other records so long as the rules for the other records
permit them to be added.

The above text prevents you updating the SOA and NS records for
example when a DNAME is use at the apex of a zone.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE:	+61 2 9871 4742		         INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: "W.C.A. Wijngaards" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:07:36 +0100

Hi Mark,

Let's use this empty new mailing list :-)

> Apart from that it should be treated like any other record as far

yes, but also no CNAME+DNAME and a zone transfer might break
interoperability with a secondary if such an update is accepted.

> example when a DNAME is use at the apex of a zone.

That was not the intent.  Here is a new 5.2 paragraph 2:

If a dynamic update message attempts to add a DNAME but a CNAME is
associated with that name, then the server MUST ignore the DNAME.  If a
DNAME is associated with that name, then it is replaced with the new
DNAME.  Otherwise, add the DNAME.  If a CNAME is added but a DNAME is
associated with that name, then the CNAME MUST be ignored.  This is
similar behavior to dynamic updates to an owner name of a CNAME RR
[RFC2136].

Best regards,
   Wouter
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:26:44 +1100

In message <[email-masked]>, "W.C.A. Wijngaards" writes:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 

Sounds reasonable.

> Best regards,
>    Wouter
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkzafPgACgkQkDLqNwOhpPiPdgCfbJc/KAxA8qtSM38NEoVQwjYz
> nM0AoLezRrom1Eqiua8KigwaEfS+A3Fr
> =oQHN
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----