Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-apl-rr-01.txt

[gson@nominum.com (Andreas Gustafsson)]

> In short: There is no need for a protocol change. The standards already
> make perfectly clear that DNS caches (and AXFR secondaries) must handle
> unknown record types.

I don't think the following text in RFC1035 is particularly clear:

   Pointers can only be used for occurances of a domain name where the
   format is not class specific.  If this were not the case, a name server
   or resolver would be required to know the format of all RRs it handled.
   As yet, there are no such cases, but they may occur in future RDATA
   formats.

To me this seems to imply that domain names in future non-class-specific
types can safely compressed, which of course is incorrect.

> I strongly object to your draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-00. [...]
> Handling the compression allowed by the protocol---owner names, NS data,
> CNAME data, PTR data, MX data, and SOA data---already takes way too much
> code; adding more code to decompress bogus records is a really bad idea.

draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-00 does not require you to decompress
post-RFC1035 record types - it's a SHOULD, not a MUST.
-- 
Andreas Gustafsson, gson@nominum.com


to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.