CNAME Definition

[Erik Aronesty]

Dear Joseph,

By definition, yes.  I would never dispute that.

But logically, SOA/NS's should be exempt from CNAME chaining.

RFC2535/2.3.5 proposes that SIG/KEY/NXT records be exempt from CNAME
chaining because they are 'special records' for which it is not logical to
process chaining.

In the case of doing nslookup -type=SOA on an aliased domain... the SOA
should also be exempt from chaining for the same reason.

The returned results from the current set of resolvers are misleading and
incorrect for any purposes.

                - Erik


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph S D Yao" <jsdy at cospo.osis.gov>
To: "Erik Aronesty" <erik at primedata.org>
Cc: <asenec at senechalle.net>; <comp-protocols-dns-bind at moderators.isc.org>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: CNAME Definition


> On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 10:08:32AM -0500, Erik Aronesty wrote:
> > Or maybe BIND was right from the very beginning and the RFC's were
wrong?
>
> Since BIND strives to implement the RFCs, if it were not implementing
> an RFC then by definition it would be wrong.
>
> --
> Joe Yao jsdy at cospo.osis.gov - Joseph S. D. Yao
> COSPO/OSIS Computer Support EMT-B
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This message is not an official statement of COSPO policies.
>
>