Is RFC 4343 adequate? Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 05:14:04PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: >> Speaking as someone who, in this area, is far more qualified to >> be a victim than an expert, can we please get things that >> affects what people can and cannot reasonably expect written >> down somewhere, perhaps as an update to RFC 2181? > > On this general issue, note that there was a recent IETF LC (and IESG > approval) of a terminology document that is only a _start_ on this. > But it is a start. We need more help. > > Not to put too fine a point on it, the DNS is everywhere, and it has > evolved quite a bit. There's no question that there are gaps in the > specifications. But the last time we attempted to do document updates > without a lot of sponsorship (which is how I got to be the lucky > winner of the second chair in DNSEXT), the effort foundered for lack > of humans to review, test, and so on. > > If this effort is needed, the community needs to do it. I am not > (happily) in a position to force that to happen. > >> Expectations about case preservation under different scenarios, >> with comments about how strong those expectations should be >> given various implementations > > In my opinion, all you can rely upon is that case-insensitive matching > happens for any octet that happens to match the ASCII range of > letters. Preservation will happen _somewhere_ in the DNS message > (maybe in the question section only) for any conforming > implementation, but that's about it. In a distributed-management and > distributed-cache database like the DNS, I confess that I find > expectations much beyond that to be poor candidates for probable > satisfaction. > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >