Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CNAME interaction clarification #123

Open
bemasc opened this issue Mar 10, 2020 · 0 comments
Open

CNAME interaction clarification #123

bemasc opened this issue Mar 10, 2020 · 0 comments

Comments

@bemasc
Copy link
Collaborator

@bemasc bemasc commented Mar 10, 2020

SVCB doesn't change anything about CNAME, or really have any interesting interaction with CNAME, but it's mentioned all over the text. We might be able to simplify this.

"""
When a prior CNAME or SVCB record has aliased to an SVCB record, each
   RR shall be returned under its own owner name.
"""

If I am not misinterpreting this, this seems to be the natural way CNAME works
and I am wondering if the text should not be removed from this section. My
general comment is that the text refers too much to CNAME. Probably only the
fall back function of CNAME should be mentioned in the main text and other
considerations may be moved to the appendix to ease the reading. This is
obviously just a comment.

"""
 Note that the SVCB record's owner name MAY be the canonical name of a
   CNAME record, and the SvcDomainName MAY be the owner of a CNAME
   record.  Clients and recursive resolvers MUST follow CNAMEs as
   normal.
"""

I am not sure this is should be mentioned in the main part of the document and
maybe annex would be more appropriated.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
1 participant
You can’t perform that action at this time.