RFC requirements for relative CNAME targets?
johnmill at brandeis.edu
Thu Jul 18 21:49:37 UTC 2013
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Charles Swiger <cswiger at mac.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 1:18 PM, John Miller <johnmill at brandeis.edu> wrote:
> > I know that for the following record in example.com's zone file:
> > host.example.com. IN CNAME otherhost
> > BIND will return:
> > host.example.com. <TTL> IN CNAME otherhost.example.com.
> Assuming $ORIGIN is set to example.com, but yes.
> > Is this behavior required anywhere in the RFCs, or would
> > host.example.com. <TTL> IN CNAME otherhost.
> > be equally valid from an RFC perspective? Obviously this would also
> pertain to NS, MX, SRV, PTR, etc. records.
> "otherhost." is equally valid from an RFC perspective, or
> "otherhost.other.domain." If there is a trailing dot, the CNAME target is
> assumed to be fully qualified, otherwise $ORIGIN is appended just as it
> would be for any other record using an unqualified name.
I think what I was getting at was whether appending $ORIGIN to an
unqualified target--only talking target, not label--was _required_ by the
RFCs, and if so, the RFC/section. I'll read through 'em; was just hoping
someone knew the answer off the top of their head.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bind-users