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

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

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 namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>