cnames...

[Tal Dayan]

Hi Brad,

My main point is that the singular restriction of
CNAME-everywhere-except-for-the-domain-itself of the standard and/or BIND is
not the prefered behavior from a user viewpoint but a result of some
historic and technical issues.

Let's recognize this first.

Tal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Knowles [mailto:brad.knowles at skynet.be]
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 2:49 AM
> To: Tal Dayan; Kevin Darcy; comp-protocols-dns-bind at moderators.isc.org
> Cc: erik at primedata.org
> Subject: RE: cnames...
>
>
> At 11:21 PM -0800 3/3/01, Tal Dayan wrote:
>
> >  Without getting to into the technical details of BIND and DNS
> (which I am
> >  not familiar with), I think the server should return a
> response depending on
> >  what the client looking for. It is that simple. If the client
> wants to map a
> >  name to an IP, it should return an A record (if any) or will refer the
> >  client to the right hand of the CNAME. If the client is looking for
> >  information about the domain itself, it should return the soa,
> ns etc. If
> >  the client is looking for a mail server mapping, it should
> return the MX
> >  record.
>
> 	No, it's not that simple.  The RFCs explicitly say that a CNAME
> cannot occur with other data at that node, and anything else is an
> error.  The problem is that not sufficiently enforcing this rule in
> the past has gotten us into the situation we're in now, and we simply
> cannot afford to do this any longer.  Indeed, we would all have been
> much better off if this kind of behaviour was properly enforced long
> ago.
>
>
> 	If you want to change this behaviour back, then I suggest you go
> try to get the RFCs modified to suit.  When that happens, and your
> modifications become the next "Recommended Standard" in this area,
> then you can be pretty well assured that BIND will follow suit.
>
> 	However, until then, don't try to argue something without
> understanding the RFCs and the technical details involved.  A lawyer
> that tried to argue a case in court by first openly stating their
> ignorance of the law and then blatantly disregarding that law
> wouldn't have any more success there than you will here by trying to
> argue this matter using the methods you've attempted to use so far.
>
> 	Understand the RFCs, understand the technical reasons behind the
> RFCs, or don't bother trying to argue the point.  Otherwise, you're
> just wasting your breath and everyone's time.
>
> --
> ======================================================================
> Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at skynet.be>
>