Eric Orth wrote:
CNAMEs already exist without a standardized limit. Good or bad, too late
to change that without breaking things.
According to rfc1034:
Domain names in RRs which point at another name should
always point at the primary name and not the alias.
CNAME chain is p
+1 on "Complete"
Tim
(no hats this time)
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ray Bellis wrote:
>
>
> On 20/12/2019 15:08, Bob Harold wrote:
>
> > But if we are updating it, could we consider a better word than
> > "forward" ? Actually "backward" would be correct, although I prefer
> > "from the b
On 20/12/2019 15:08, Bob Harold wrote:
> But if we are updating it, could we consider a better word than
> "forward" ? Actually "backward" would be correct, although I prefer
> "from the back to the front" as used elsewhere.
It's not possible to traverse the RRs in a raw DNS packet "backwards"
On Monday, 23 December 2019 20:22:01 UTC Eric Orth wrote:
> Maybe it would help if we scoped down any chain limiting:
>
> 1) Any chain limiting only applies to SVCB alias form, not CNAME.
>
> CNAMEs already exist without a standardized limit. Good or bad, too late
> to change that without breaki
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 12:22 PM Eric Orth wrote:
> Maybe it would help if we scoped down any chain limiting:
>
> 1) Any chain limiting only applies to SVCB alias form, not CNAME.
>
> CNAMEs already exist without a standardized limit. Good or bad, too late
> to change that without breaking thing
