Heho, > Vladimír Čunát wrote: > I believe that's a wrong approach in principle and risky in practice.
Oh, i am fully with you on this one; I just try to make sure I did not miss a development that outdated RFC2181. Context: I am currently dealing with academic reviewers claiming that not using CNAMEs for NS is, quote, "[...] by the spec, [..] true, [but] also commonly ignored in practice. This is trivial to demonstrate with a test domain and queries against major public DNS resolvers." This statement refers to me/'us' excluding all NS records that are CNAME instead of A/AAAA in a work looking at delegation issues (which is not broken delegation in general), while citing RFC2181 Sec 10.3 as the reason for doing so. This is what prompted me to dig into it in the first place as I will have to make an argument why we are not considering CNAME NS as a source for potentially successful resolution in the future. I would personally argue "RFC says no" still holds, and I think you already gave me another good argument to make why exclusion of CNAME NS is valid in our case. With best regards, Tobias _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
