draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-08.txt   draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-09.txt 
DNSEXT Working Group E. Lewis DNSEXT Working Group E. Lewis
INTERNET DRAFT NeuStar INTERNET DRAFT NeuStar
Expiration Date: January 6, 2006 July 6, 2005 Expiration Date: February 28, 2006 August 31, 2005
Updates RFC 1034, RFC 2672 Updates RFC 1034, RFC 2672
The Role of Wildcards The Role of Wildcards
in the Domain Name System in the Domain Name System
draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-08.txt draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-09.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79. BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
skipping to change at line 35 skipping to change at page 10, line ?
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress." progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2006. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 28, 2006.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract Abstract
This is an update to the wildcard definition of RFC 1034. The This is an update to the wildcard definition of RFC 1034. The
interaction with wildcards and CNAME is changed, an error interaction with wildcards and CNAME is changed, an error
condition removed, and the words defining some concepts central condition removed, and the words defining some concepts central
to wildcards are changed. The overall goal is not to change to wildcards are changed. The overall goal is not to change
wildcards, but to refine the definition of RFC 1034. wildcards, but to refine the definition of RFC 1034.
DNSEXT Working Group Expires February 28, 2006 [Page 1]
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Motivation 1 1 Motivation 3
1.2 The Original Definition 1 2 The Original Definition 3
1.3 Roadmap to This Document 1 3 Roadmap to This Document 4
1.3.1 New Terms 1 3 1 New Terms 4
1.3.2 Changed Text 1.3.2 Changed Text 5
1.3.3 Considerations with Special Types 1.3.3 Considerations with Special Types 5
1.4 Standards Terminology 1.4 Standards Terminology 5
2. Wildcard Syntax 2. Wildcard Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 Identifying a Wildcard 2.1 Identifying a Wildcard 6
2.1.1 Wild Card Domain Name and Asterisk Label 2.1.1 Wild Card Domain Name and Asterisk Label 6
2.1.2 Asterisks and Other Characters 2.1.2 Asterisks and Other Characters 6
2.1.3 Non-terminal Wild Card Domain Names 2.1.3 Non-terminal Wild Card Domain Names 6
2.2 Existence Rules 2.2 Existence Rules 7
2.2.1 An Example 2.2.1 An Example 7
2.2.2 Empty Non-terminals 2.2.2 Empty Non-terminals 9
2.2.3 Yet Another Definition of Existence 2.2.3 Yet Another Definition of Existence 10
2.3 When is a Wild Card Domain Name Not Special 2.3 When is a Wild Card Domain Name Not Special 10
3. Impact of a Wild Card Domain Name On a Response 3. Impact of a Wild Card Domain Name On a Response . . . . . 10
3.1 Step 2 3.1 Step 2 10
3.2 Step 3 3.2 Step 3 11
3.3 Part 'c' 3.3 Part 'c' 11
3.3.1 Closest Encloser and the Source of Synthesis 3.3.1 Closest Encloser and the Source of Synthesis 12
3.3.2 Closest Encloser and Source of Synthesis Examples 3.3.2 Closest Encloser and Source of Synthesis Examples 12
3.3.3 Type Matching 3.3.3 Type Matching 13
4. Considerations with Special Types 4. Considerations with Special Types . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1 SOA RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 4.1 SOA RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 13
4.2 NS RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 4.2 NS RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 14
4.2.1 Discarded Notions 4.2.1 Discarded Notions 14
4.3 CNAME RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 4.3 CNAME RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 15
4.4 DNAME RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 4.4 DNAME RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 15
4.5 SRV RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 4.5 SRV RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 16
4.6 DS RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 4.6 DS RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 16
4.7 NSEC RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 4.7 NSEC RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 17
4.8 RRSIG at a Wild Card Domain Name 4.8 RRSIG at a Wild Card Domain Name 17
4.9 Empty Non-terminal Wild Card Domain Name 4.9 Empty Non-terminal Wild Card Domain Name 17
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. References 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Editor 8. Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Others Contributing to the Document 9. Others Contributing to the Document . . . . . . . . 18
10. Trailing Boilerplate 10. Trailing Boilerplate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
DNSEXT Working Group Expires February 28, 2006 [Page 2]
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In RFC 1034 [RFC1034], sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 describe the In RFC 1034 [RFC1034], sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 describe the
synthesis of answers from special resource records called synthesis of answers from special resource records called
wildcards. The definition in RFC 1034 is incomplete and has wildcards. The definition in RFC 1034 is incomplete and has
proven to be confusing. This document describes the wildcard proven to be confusing. This document describes the wildcard
synthesis by adding to the discussion and making limited synthesis by adding to the discussion and making limited
modifications. Modifications are made to close inconsistencies modifications. Modifications are made to close inconsistencies
that have led to interoperability issues. This description that have led to interoperability issues. This description
skipping to change at line 135 skipping to change at page 10, line ?
This document is intended to limit its changes, documenting only This document is intended to limit its changes, documenting only
those based on implementation experience, and to remain as close those based on implementation experience, and to remain as close
to the original document as possible. To reinforce that this to the original document as possible. To reinforce that this
document is meant to clarify and adjust and not redefine wildcards, document is meant to clarify and adjust and not redefine wildcards,
relevant sections of RFC 1034 are repeated verbatim to facilitate relevant sections of RFC 1034 are repeated verbatim to facilitate
comparison of the old and new text. comparison of the old and new text.
1.2 The Original Definition 1.2 The Original Definition
The defintion of the wildcard concept is comprised by the The definition of the wildcard concept is comprised by the
documentation of the algorithm by which a name server prepares documentation of the algorithm by which a name server prepares
a response (in RFC 1034's section 4.3.2) and the way in which a response (in RFC 1034's section 4.3.2) and the way in which
a resource record (set) is identified as being a source of a resource record (set) is identified as being a source of
synthetic data (section 4.3.3). synthetic data (section 4.3.3).
This is the definition of the term "wildcard" as it appears in This is the definition of the term "wildcard" as it appears in
RFC 1034, section 4.3.3. RFC 1034, section 4.3.3.
DNSEXT Working Group Expires February 28, 2006 [Page 3]
# In the previous algorithm, special treatment was given to RRs with # In the previous algorithm, special treatment was given to RRs with
# owner names starting with the label "*". Such RRs are called # owner names starting with the label "*". Such RRs are called
# wildcards. Wildcard RRs can be thought of as instructions for # wildcards. Wildcard RRs can be thought of as instructions for
# synthesizing RRs. When the appropriate conditions are met, the name # synthesizing RRs. When the appropriate conditions are met, the name
# server creates RRs with an owner name equal to the query name and # server creates RRs with an owner name equal to the query name and
# contents taken from the wildcard RRs. # contents taken from the wildcard RRs.
This passage follows the algorithm in which the term wildcard This passage follows the algorithm in which the term wildcard
is first used. In this definition, wildcard refers to resource is first used. In this definition, wildcard refers to resource
records. In other usage, wildcard has referred to domain names, records. In other usage, wildcard has referred to domain names,
skipping to change at line 196 skipping to change at page 10, line ?
To help in discussing what resource records are wildcards, two To help in discussing what resource records are wildcards, two
terms will be defined - "asterisk label" and "wild card domain terms will be defined - "asterisk label" and "wild card domain
name". These are defined in section 2.1.1. name". These are defined in section 2.1.1.
To assist in clarifying the role of wildcards in the name server To assist in clarifying the role of wildcards in the name server
algorithm in RFC 1034, 4.3.2, "source of synthesis" and "closest algorithm in RFC 1034, 4.3.2, "source of synthesis" and "closest
encloser" are defined. These definitions are in section 3.3.2. encloser" are defined. These definitions are in section 3.3.2.
"Label match" is defined in section 3.2. "Label match" is defined in section 3.2.
DNSEXT Working Group Expires February 28, 2006 [Page 4]
The new terms are used to make discussions of wildcards clearer. The new terms are used to make discussions of wildcards clearer.
Terminology doesn't directly have an impact on implementations. Terminology doesn't directly have an impact on implementations.
1.3.2 Changed Text 1.3.2 Changed Text
The definition of "existence" is changed superficially. This The definition of "existence" is changed superficially. This
change will not be apparent to implementations; it is needed to change will not be apparent to implementations; it is needed to
make descriptions more precise. The change appears in section make descriptions more precise. The change appears in section
2.2.3. 2.2.3.
skipping to change at line 244 skipping to change at page 10, line ?
1.4 Standards Terminology 1.4 Standards Terminology
This document does not use terms as defined in "Key words for use This document does not use terms as defined in "Key words for use
in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels." [RFC2119] in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels." [RFC2119]
Quotations of RFC 1034 are denoted by a '#' in the leftmost Quotations of RFC 1034 are denoted by a '#' in the leftmost
column. References to section "4.3.2" are assumed to refer column. References to section "4.3.2" are assumed to refer
to RFC 1034's section 4.3.2, simply titled "Algorithm." to RFC 1034's section 4.3.2, simply titled "Algorithm."
DNSEXT Working Group Expires February 28, 2006 [Page 5]
2. Wildcard Syntax 2. Wildcard Syntax
The syntax of a wildcard is the same as any other DNS resource The syntax of a wildcard is the same as any other DNS resource
record, across all classes and types. The only significant record, across all classes and types. The only significant
feature is the owner name. feature is the owner name.
Because wildcards are encoded as resource records with special Because wildcards are encoded as resource records with special
names, they are included in zone transfers and incremental zone names, they are included in zone transfers and incremental zone
transfers[RFC1995] just as non-wildcard resource records are. transfers[RFC1995] just as non-wildcard resource records are.
This feature has been underappreciated until discussions on This feature has been underappreciated until discussions on
skipping to change at line 296 skipping to change at page 10, line ?
names. names.
2.1.3 Non-terminal Wild Card Domain Names 2.1.3 Non-terminal Wild Card Domain Names
In section 4.3.3, the following is stated: In section 4.3.3, the following is stated:
# .......................... The owner name of the wildcard RRs is of # .......................... The owner name of the wildcard RRs is of
# the form "*.<anydomain>", where <anydomain> is any domain name. # the form "*.<anydomain>", where <anydomain> is any domain name.
# <anydomain> should not contain other * labels...................... # <anydomain> should not contain other * labels......................
DNSEXT Working Group Expires February 28, 2006 [Page 6]
The restriction is now removed. The original documentation of it The restriction is now removed. The original documentation of it
is incomplete and the restriction does not serve any purpose given is incomplete and the restriction does not serve any purpose
years of operational experience. given years of operational experience.
There are three possible reasons for putting the restriction in There are three possible reasons for putting the restriction in
place, but none of the three has held up over time. One is place, but none of the three has held up over time. One is
that the restriction meant that there would never be subdomains that the restriction meant that there would never be subdomains
of wild card domain names, but the restriciton as stated still of wild card domain names, but the restriciton as stated still
permits "example.*.example." for instance. Another is that permits "example.*.example." for instance. Another is that
wild card domain names are not intended to be empty non-terminals, wild card domain names are not intended to be empty non-terminals,
but this situation does not disrupt the algorithm in 4.3.2. but this situation does not disrupt the algorithm in 4.3.2.
Finally, "nested" wild card domain names are not ambiguous once Finally, "nested" wild card domain names are not ambiguous once
the concept of the closest encloser had been documented. the concept of the closest encloser had been documented.
skipping to change at line 332 skipping to change at page 10, line ?
definition of wildcards. In section 4.3.3 of RFC 1034: definition of wildcards. In section 4.3.3 of RFC 1034:
# Wildcard RRs do not apply: # Wildcard RRs do not apply:
# #
... ...
# - When the query name or a name between the wildcard domain and # - When the query name or a name between the wildcard domain and
# the query name is know[n] to exist. For example, if a wildcard # the query name is know[n] to exist. For example, if a wildcard
"Existence" is therefore an important concept in the understanding "Existence" is therefore an important concept in the understanding
of wildcards. Unfortunately, the definition of what exists, in RFC of wildcards. Unfortunately, the definition of what exists, in RFC
1034, is unlcear. So, in sections 2.2.2. and 2.2.3, another look is 1034, is unclear. So, in sections 2.2.2. and 2.2.3, another look is
taken at the definition of existence. taken at the definition of existence.
2.2.1 An Example 2.2.1 An Example
To illustrate what is meant by existence consider this complete To illustrate what is meant by existence consider this complete
zone: zone:
DNSEXT Working Group Expires February 28, 2006 [Page 7]
$ORIGIN example. $ORIGIN example.
example. 3600 IN SOA <SOA RDATA> example. 3600 IN SOA <SOA RDATA>
example. 3600 NS ns.example.com. example. 3600 NS ns.example.com.
example. 3600 NS ns.example.net. example. 3600 NS ns.example.net.
*.example. 3600 TXT "this is a wild card" *.example. 3600 TXT "this is a wild card"
*.example. 3600 MX 10 host1.example. *.example. 3600 MX 10 host1.example.
sub.*.example. 3600 TXT "this is not a wild card" sub.*.example. 3600 TXT "this is not a wild card"
host1.example. 3600 A 192.0.4.1 host1.example. 3600 A 192.0.4.1
_ssh._tcp.host1.example. 3600 SRV <SRV RDATA> _ssh._tcp.host1.example. 3600 SRV <SRV RDATA>
_ssh._tcp.host2.example. 3600 SRV <SRV RDATA> _ssh._tcp.host2.example. 3600 SRV <SRV RDATA>
skipping to change at line 392 skipping to change at page 10, line ?
The following responses would not be synthesized from any of the The following responses would not be synthesized from any of the
wildcards in the zone: wildcards in the zone:
QNAME=host1.example., QTYPE=MX, QCLASS=IN QNAME=host1.example., QTYPE=MX, QCLASS=IN
because host1.example. exists because host1.example. exists
QNAME=sub.*.example., QTYPE=MX, QCLASS=IN QNAME=sub.*.example., QTYPE=MX, QCLASS=IN
because sub.*.example. exists because sub.*.example. exists
DNSEXT Working Group Expires February 28, 2006 [Page 8]
QNAME=_telnet._tcp.host1.example., QTYPE=SRV, QCLASS=IN QNAME=_telnet._tcp.host1.example., QTYPE=SRV, QCLASS=IN
because _tcp.host1.example. exists (without data) because _tcp.host1.example. exists (without data)
QNAME=host.subdel.example., QTYPE=A, QCLASS=IN QNAME=host.subdel.example., QTYPE=A, QCLASS=IN
because subdel.example. exists (and is a zone cut) because subdel.example. exists (and is a zone cut)
QNAME=ghost.*.example., QTYPE=MX, QCLASS=IN QNAME=ghost.*.example., QTYPE=MX, QCLASS=IN
because *.example. exists because *.example. exists
The final example highlights one common misconception about The final example highlights one common misconception about
skipping to change at line 441 skipping to change at page 10, line ?
practically concerned, is a leaf of the domain tree. But the practically concerned, is a leaf of the domain tree. But the
definition can be taken to mean that sub.www.example. also definition can be taken to mean that sub.www.example. also
exists, albeit with no data. By extension, all possible domains exists, albeit with no data. By extension, all possible domains
exist, from the root on down. exist, from the root on down.
As RFC 1034 also defines "an authoritative name error indicating As RFC 1034 also defines "an authoritative name error indicating
that the name does not exist" in section 4.3.1, so this apparently that the name does not exist" in section 4.3.1, so this apparently
is not the intent of the original definition, justifying the is not the intent of the original definition, justifying the
need for an updated definition in the next section. need for an updated definition in the next section.
DNSEXT Working Group Expires February 28, 2006 [Page 9]
2.2.3 Yet Another Definition of Existence 2.2.3 Yet Another Definition of Existence
RFC1034's wording is fixed by the following paragraph: RFC1034's wording is fixed by the following paragraph:
The domain name space is a tree structure. Nodes in the tree The domain name space is a tree structure. Nodes in the tree
either own at least one RRSet and/or have descendants that either own at least one RRSet and/or have descendants that
collectively own at least one RRSet. A node may exist with no collectively own at least one RRSet. A node may exist with no
RRSets only if it has descendents that do, this node is an empty RRSets only if it has descendents that do, this node is an empty
non-terminal. non-terminal.
skipping to change at line 487 skipping to change at page 10, line ?
The algorithm in section 4.3.2. is not intended to be pseudo-code, The algorithm in section 4.3.2. is not intended to be pseudo-code,
i.e., its steps are not intended to be followed in strict order. i.e., its steps are not intended to be followed in strict order.
The "algorithm" is a suggested means of implementing the The "algorithm" is a suggested means of implementing the
requirements. As such, in step 3, parts a, b, and c, do not have requirements. As such, in step 3, parts a, b, and c, do not have
to be implemented in that order, provided that the result of the to be implemented in that order, provided that the result of the
implemented code is compliant with the protocol's specification. implemented code is compliant with the protocol's specification.
3.1 Step 2 3.1 Step 2
Step 2 of the section 4.3.2 reads: Step 2 of section 4.3.2 reads:
# 2. Search the available zones for the zone which is the nearest # 2. Search the available zones for the zone which is the nearest
# ancestor to QNAME. If such a zone is found, go to step 3, # ancestor to QNAME. If such a zone is found, go to step 3,
# otherwise step 4. # otherwise step 4.
In this step, the most appropriate zone for the response is In this step, the most appropriate zone for the response is
chosen. The significance of this step is that it means all of chosen. The significance of this step is that it means all of
step 3 is being performed within one zone. This has significance step 3 is being performed within one zone. This has significance
when considering whether or not an SOA RR can be ever be used for when considering whether or not an SOA RR can be ever be used for
synthesis. synthesis.
skipping to change at line 651 skipping to change at page 14, line 17
ownership of an SOA RRSet. ownership of an SOA RRSet.
E.g., given this zone: E.g., given this zone:
$ORIGIN *.example. $ORIGIN *.example.
@ 3600 IN SOA <SOA RDATA> @ 3600 IN SOA <SOA RDATA>
3600 NS ns1.example.com. 3600 NS ns1.example.com.
3600 NS ns1.example.net. 3600 NS ns1.example.net.
www 3600 TXT "the www txt record" www 3600 TXT "the www txt record"
A query for www.*.example.'s TXT record would still find the A query for www.*.example.'s TXT record would still find the
"the www txt record" answer. The reason is that the asterisk "the www txt record" answer. The asterisk label only becomes
label only becomes significant when section's 4.3.2, step 3 significant when section 4.3.2, step 3 part 'c' in in effect.
part 'c' in in effect.
Of course, there would need to be a delegation in the parent Of course, there would need to be a delegation in the parent
zone, "example." for this to work too. This is covered in the zone, "example." for this to work too. This is covered in the
next section. next section.
4.2 NS RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 4.2 NS RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name
With the definition of DNSSEC [RFC4033, RFC4034, RFC4035] now With the definition of DNSSEC [RFC4033, RFC4034, RFC4035] now
in place, the semantics of a wild card domain name owning an in place, the semantics of a wild card domain name owning an
NS RRSet has come to be poorly defined. The dilemma relates to NS RRSet has come to be poorly defined. The dilemma relates to
a conflict between the rules for synthesis in part 'c' and the a conflict between the rules for synthesis in part 'c' and the
fact that the resulting synthesis generates a record for which fact that the resulting synthesis generates a record for which
the zone is not authoritative. In a DNSSEC signed zone, the the zone is not authoritative. In a DNSSEC signed zone, the
mechanics of signature management (generation and inclusion mechanics of signature management (generation and inclusion
in a message) become unclear. in a message) have become unclear.
After some lengthy discussions, there has been no clear "best
answer" on how to document the semantics of such a situation.
Barring such records from the DNS would require definition of
rules for that, as well as introducing a restriction on records
that were once legal. Allowing such records and amending the
process of signature management would entail complicating the
DNSSEC definition.
There is one more ingredient to the discussion, that being the Salient points of the working group discussion on this topic is
utility of a wild card domain name owned NS RRSet. Although summarized in section 4.2.1.
there are cases of this use, it is an operational rarity.
Expending effort to close this topic has proven to be an
exercise in diminishing returns.
In summary, there is no definition given for wild card domain As a result of these discussion, there is no definition given for
names owning an NS RRSet. The semantics are left undefined until wild card domain names owning an NS RRSet. The semantics are
there is a clear need to have a set defined, and until there is left undefined until there is a clear need to have a set defined,
a clear direction to proceed. Operationally, inclusion of wild and until there is a clear direction to proceed. Operationally,
card NS RRSets in a zone is discouraged, but not barred. inclusion of wild card NS RRSets in a zone is discouraged, but
not barred.
4.2.1 Discarded Notions 4.2.1 Discarded Notions
Prior to DNSSEC, a wild card domain name owning a NS RRSet Prior to DNSSEC, a wild card domain name owning a NS RRSet
appeared to be workable, and there are some instances in which appeared to be workable, and there are some instances in which
it is found in deployments using implementations that support it is found in deployments using implementations that support
this. Continuing to allow this in the specificaion is not this. Continuing to allow this in the specification is not
tenable with DNSSEC. The reason is that the synthesis of the tenable with DNSSEC. The reason is that the synthesis of the
NS RRSet is being done in a zone that has delegated away the NS RRSet is being done in a zone that has delegated away the
responsibility for the name. This "unauthorized" synthesis is responsibility for the name. This "unauthorized" synthesis is
not a problem for the base DNS protocol, but DNSSEC, in affirming not a problem for the base DNS protocol, but DNSSEC, in affirming
the authorization model for DNS exposes the problem. the authorization model for DNS exposes the problem.
Outright banning of wildcards of type NS is also untenable as Outright banning of wildcards of type NS is also untenable as
the DNS protocol does not define how to handle "illegal" data. the DNS protocol does not define how to handle "illegal" data.
Implementations may choose not to load a zone, but there is no Implementations may choose not to load a zone, but there is no
protocol definition. The lack of the definition is complicated protocol definition. The lack of the definition is complicated
by having to cover dynamic update [RFC 2136], zone transfers, by having to cover dynamic update [RFC 2136], zone transfers,
as well as loading at the master server. The case of a client as well as loading at the master server. The case of a client
(resolver, cacheing server) getting a wildcard of type NS in (resolver, caching server) getting a wildcard of type NS in
a reply would also have to be considered. a reply would also have to be considered.
Given the daunting challenge of a complete definition of how to Given the daunting challenge of a complete definition of how to
ban such records, dealing with existing implementations that ban such records, dealing with existing implementations that
permit the records today is a further complication. There are permit the records today is a further complication. There are
uses of wild card domain name owning NS RRSets. uses of wild card domain name owning NS RRSets.
One compromise proposed would have redefined wildcards of type One compromise proposed would have redefined wildcards of type
NS to not be used in synthesis, this compromise fell apart NS to not be used in synthesis, this compromise fell apart
because it would have required significant edits to the DNSSEC because it would have required significant edits to the DNSSEC
skipping to change at line 792 skipping to change at page 16, line 43
# shows this clearly. # shows this clearly.
Do not confuse the definition "Name" with the owner name. I.e., Do not confuse the definition "Name" with the owner name. I.e.,
once removing the _Service and _Proto labels from the owner name once removing the _Service and _Proto labels from the owner name
of the SRV RRSet, what remains could be a wild card domain name of the SRV RRSet, what remains could be a wild card domain name
but this is immaterial to the SRV RRSet. but this is immaterial to the SRV RRSet.
E.g., If an SRV record is: E.g., If an SRV record is:
_foo._udp.*.example. 10800 IN SRV 0 1 9 old-slow-box.example. _foo._udp.*.example. 10800 IN SRV 0 1 9 old-slow-box.example.
*.example is a wild card domain name and although it it the Name *.example is a wild card domain name and although it is the Name
of the SRV RR, it is not the owner (domain name). The owner of the SRV RR, it is not the owner (domain name). The owner
domain name is "_foo._udp.*.example." which is not a wild card domain name is "_foo._udp.*.example." which is not a wild card
domain name. domain name.
The confusion is likely based on the mixture of the specification The confusion is likely based on the mixture of the specification
of the SRV RR and the description of a "use case." of the SRV RR and the description of a "use case."
4.6 DS RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name 4.6 DS RRSet at a Wild Card Domain Name
A DS RRSet owned by a wild card domain name is meaningless and A DS RRSet owned by a wild card domain name is meaningless and
skipping to change at line 956 skipping to change at page 19, line ?
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
Expiration Expiration
This document expires on or about January 6, 2006. This document expires on or about February 28, 2006.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.25, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/