John Levine wrote:
> it's also true that DNS servers (not just BIND) reject an entire master
> file if there are any syntax errors at all, so a little fuzziness is not
> harmless.
Yes. This is a common source of DNSSEC signer failures.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Biscay: Eas
>It's clear from the context that 6844 §5.1 is talking about the wire
>format, while §5.1.1 is talking about the presentation format. If the
>rules for the canonical presentation format are stricter than the rules
>for the wire format, then there exist wire RRs that cannot be
>represented using the
In message <20160311214228.ga30...@mycre.ws>, Robert Edmonds writes:
> Hi,
>
> Dick Franks wrote:
> > On 11 March 2016 at 17:47, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> >
> > > Dick Franks wrote:
> > > > There is no need to resort to doctrinal arguments about
> MUST/SHOULD, or
> > > > imagine that the RFC6844 ta
Hi,
Dick Franks wrote:
> On 11 March 2016 at 17:47, Robert Edmonds wrote:
>
> > Dick Franks wrote:
> > > There is no need to resort to doctrinal arguments about MUST/SHOULD, or
> > > imagine that the RFC6844 tail can wag the RFC1035 dog.
> > >
> > > Mark A's objection really points a fundamental
On 11 March 2016 at 17:47, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> Dick Franks wrote:
> > There is no need to resort to doctrinal arguments about MUST/SHOULD, or
> > imagine that the RFC6844 tail can wag the RFC1035 dog.
> >
> > Mark A's objection really points a fundamental contradiction in RFC6844
> > itself.
Dick Franks wrote:
> There is no need to resort to doctrinal arguments about MUST/SHOULD, or
> imagine that the RFC6844 tail can wag the RFC1035 dog.
>
> Mark A's objection really points a fundamental contradiction in RFC6844
> itself.
Hi, Dick:
Are you implying that 6844 violates 1035 in some w
There is no need to resort to doctrinal arguments about MUST/SHOULD, or
imagine that the RFC6844 tail can wag the RFC1035 dog.
Mark A's objection really points a fundamental contradiction in RFC6844
itself.
RFC6844:
5.1.1. Canonical Presentation Format
The canonical presentation format of t
I believe the erratra below was rejected incorrectly.
Firstly I can't see any discussion of this erratra on the pkix list
in the archive.
Secondly there are lots of technical errors in the rejection logic.
1) Nameserver reject whole zones at load time if a record refuses to parse.
The record
