Skip to main content

The Role of Wildcards in the Domain Name System
RFC 4592

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
11 (System) Notify list changed from ogud@ogud.com, olaf@nlnetlabs.nl to olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
2006-08-01
11 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2006-08-01
11 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 4592' added by Amy Vezza
2006-07-25
11 (System) RFC published
2006-04-03
11 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2006-03-28
11 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2006-03-28
11 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2006-03-28
11 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2006-03-24
11 Margaret Cullen State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup by Margaret Wasserman
2006-03-24
11 Margaret Cullen [Note]: 'The PROTO shepherd for this document is Olaf Kolkman <olaf@nlnetlabs.nl>.' added by Margaret Wasserman
2006-03-22
11 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2006-03-22
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-11.txt
2006-02-12
11 Margaret Cullen State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised ID Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Margaret Wasserman
2006-02-12
11 Margaret Cullen
[Note]: 'The PROTO shepherd for this document is Olaf Kolkman .  2/10/06:  The author wants to do an update based on IESG comments.  Waiting for …
[Note]: 'The PROTO shepherd for this document is Olaf Kolkman .  2/10/06:  The author wants to do an update based on IESG comments.  Waiting for new version with updates.' added by Margaret Wasserman
2006-02-03
11 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2006-02-03
11 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-02-02
2006-02-02
11 (System) [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by IESG Secretary
2006-02-02
11 Alex Zinin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin
2006-02-02
11 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2006-02-02
11 David Kessens
[Ballot comment]
I was very close to putting a DISCUSS on this document after my own review, the comments that I read by other ADs …
[Ballot comment]
I was very close to putting a DISCUSS on this document after my own review, the comments that I read by other ADs and the reviews that I received from Pekka Savola frm the Ops Directorate.

I don't believe any of the issues that are brought up are blocking from an indvidual point of view, but the collection of issues is large enough that I would very much appreciate an update to this document before sending it to the rfc editor although I will not require it.

Please see below for the comments that I received from Pekka Savola from the Ops Directorate:

This seems to be in an OK shape, though personally I'd probably have           
organized it in a slightly more different way.  But there is one thing         
I don't understand from the closest encloser spec and example.  Maybe         
someone (Rob?) can explain whether the closest encloser definition is         
lacking or I'm just not getting something?                                     
                                                                               
section 3.3.1 says:                                                           
                                                                               
      The closest encloser is, by definition, an existing name in the         
      zone.  The closest encloser might be an empty non-terminal or even       
      be a wild card domain name itself.  In no circumstances is the           
      closest encloser to be used to synthesize records for the current       
      query.                                                                   
                                                                               
.. section 2.2.1 has,                                                         
                                                                               
        host1.example.          3600    A    192.0.4.1                     
        _ssh._tcp.host1.example. 3600    SRV                       
        _ssh._tcp.host2.example. 3600    SRV                       

.. and section 3.3.2 says:                                                     
                                                                               
      QNAME                      Closest Encloser    Source of Synthesis     
      host3.example.              example.            *.example.               
      _telnet._tcp.host1.example. _tcp.host1.example. no source               
      _telnet._tcp.host2.example. host2.example.      no source               
      _telnet._tcp.host3.example. example.            *.example.               
...                                                                           
                                                                               
==> I don't understand why the closest encloser of                             
'_telnet._tcp.host2.example.', using the definition above, is not             
_tcp.host2.example.com. -- the definition says that it can be an empty         
non-terminal which '_tcp.host2.example.com.' as well as                       
'host2.example.com.' seem to be unless I'm mistaken.                           
                                                                               
Did I miss something?  If not, should the definition of the closest           
encloser be more restricted (if the example is correct), or the               
example changed?   

mostly editorial comments                                                     
-------------------------                                                     
                                                                               
..................                                                             
                                                                               
==> the ID-nits tool says:                                                     
                                                                               
  * There are 5 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest       
    one being 2 characters in excess of 72.                                   
                                                                               
==> multiple times, you use both 'wild card' and 'wildcard'.  If there is no   
specific reason for this, I'd pick one and apply it consistently.             
                                                                               
      of wild card domain names, but the restriciton as stated still           
                                                                               
==> s/restriciton/restriction/                                                 
                                                                               
        host1.example.          3600    A    192.0.4.1                     
                                                                               
==> s/192.0.4.1/192.0.2.1/ (so it's a valid RFC3330 address..)

          The domain name space is a tree structure.  Nodes in the tree           
      either own at least one RRSet and/or have descendants that               
      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         
      non-terminal.                                                           
                                                                               
==> the last sentence might read better with slight rewording after ',' or     
replacing "," with a ";".                                                     
                                                                               
      Comments on this document can be sent to the editor or the mailing       
      list for the DNSEXT WG, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org.                       
                                                                               
==> remove?  This probably won't be relevant 10 years from now, and I don't   
think this kind of info has typically been put in RFCs (though it has been     
recommended for I-D's)                                                         
                                                                               
      E.g.,  If an SRV record is:                                             
        _foo._udp.*.example. 10800 IN SRV 0 1 9 old-slow-box.example.

      *.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             
      domain name is "_foo._udp.*.example." which is not a wild card           
      domain name.                                                             
                                                                               
==> it might be useful to actually spell out what the answer would be for a   
query such as '_foo.udp_.bar.example. SRV' -- you're not saying it             
right out.                                                                     
                                                                               
9. Others Contributing to the Document                                         
                                                                               
      This document represents the work of a large working group.  The         
      editor merely recorded the collective wisdom of the working group.       
                                                                               
==> is this an 'Acknowledgements' or a 'Contributors' section?  In any         
case, both courtesy and legalese *) IMHO call for a bit more explicit         
list of contributors and/or acknowledgees.                                     
                                                                               
*) RFC3978 says:                                                               
3.4.  Representations and Warranties 

  With respect to each Contribution, each Contributor represents that         
  to the best of his or her knowledge and ability:                           
                                                                               
  a. The Contribution properly acknowledges all major Contributors.  A       
      major Contributor is any person who has materially or                   
      substantially contributed to the IETF Contribution.
2006-02-02
11 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2006-02-01
11 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Bert Wijnen
2006-02-01
11 Bert Wijnen
[Ballot comment]
In the example on page 8, I See:
        host1.example.          3600    A    192.0.4.1
The …
[Ballot comment]
In the example on page 8, I See:
        host1.example.          3600    A    192.0.4.1
The IP address probably better be in the range reserved for
examples (as per RFC3330), nameley something like 192.0.2.1
2006-02-01
11 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen
2006-02-01
11 Michelle Cotton IANA Comments:
As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2006-01-31
11 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2006-01-31
11 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2006-01-30
11 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2006-01-27
11 Brian Carpenter
[Ballot comment]
Non-blocking comment from Gen-ART review by Harald Alvestrand.
This could be considered if the draft is revised for some
other reason:

There is …
[Ballot comment]
Non-blocking comment from Gen-ART review by Harald Alvestrand.
This could be considered if the draft is revised for some
other reason:

There is a slight logical inconsistency between section 4.2, which says it can't forbid NS records at a wildcard name because it's not clear what "forbidding" a record in the DNS is, and section 4.4, which (justifiably) says that DNAME records at wildcards shold be outlawed, without going into the same details found troublesome in section 4.2.1. But I believe the recommendations are operationally reasonable, and that's the most important thing to me.
2006-01-27
11 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter
2006-01-16
11 Margaret Cullen Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-02-02 by Margaret Wasserman
2006-01-12
11 Margaret Cullen State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Margaret Wasserman
2006-01-12
11 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman
2006-01-12
11 Margaret Cullen Ballot has been issued by Margaret Wasserman
2006-01-12
11 Margaret Cullen Created "Approve" ballot
2006-01-10
11 Margaret Cullen [Note]: 'The PROTO shepherd for this document is Olaf Kolkman .' added by Margaret Wasserman
2006-01-09
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-10.txt
2005-12-12
11 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2005-11-28
11 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2005-11-28
11 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2005-11-23
11 Margaret Cullen Last Call was requested by Margaret Wasserman
2005-11-23
11 Margaret Cullen State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Margaret Wasserman
2005-11-23
11 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2005-11-23
11 (System) Last call text was added
2005-11-23
11 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2005-11-06
11 Margaret Cullen Draft Added by Margaret Wasserman in state Publication Requested
2005-09-02
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-09.txt
2005-07-07
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-08.txt
2005-05-16
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-07.txt
2005-05-11
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-06.txt
2005-02-11
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-05.txt
2005-01-20
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-04.txt
2004-10-11
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-03.txt
2003-09-29
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-02.txt
2003-08-11
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-01.txt
2003-06-17
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-00.txt