> On Aug 12, 2015, at 7:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 07:27:53AM +0100, Miek Gieben wrote: >> So we are in agreement that glibc's stub resolver is acting really dumb here? > > I think that's overstating it. It appears that glibc implemented the > protocol according to a widely-held but (at least mostly) undocumented > feature of the protocol. I think my reading of the documents is more > in line with your interpretation, but as you can see in the thread > Mark thought "add" meant something obvious. Given the wide deployment > of glibc, it's rather hard to call it "wrong" -- it's got a running > code argument, after all. I think this is probably a gap in the > specification. It's hardly the first one in the DNS. >
I suspect that it may also have to do, in part, with how the stub resolver performs its bailiwick checks. A cname target may be out of bailiwick if the alias has not come into view yet. Expecting the cname to precede the target could be an implementation short-cut (not saying anything about whether it is right or wrong). Suresh > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > a...@anvilwalrusden.com > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
