RFC requirements for relative CNAME targets?

[John Miller]

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.
>
> Regards,
> --
> -Chuck
>
>
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.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20130718/c8965092/attachment.html>