[Opendnssec-develop] Fw: [dnsext] Question on NAPTR text format

[Matthijs Mekking]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

We could update the libraries, but I think it is not a huge issue. As it
is undefined, it is garbage in / garbage out.

I'll update ldns, but I think there is no time constraint for making a
new release for this.

Matthijs

Alexd at nominet.org.uk wrote:
> I asked namedroppers for opinion on the /D notation in resource records
> (as discussed last week on this list).
> 
> The response (below) seems to be that this is an error.
> 
> Should we update ldns and dnsruby with this behaviour, so that they at
> least behave consistently when confronted with this invalid notation?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Alex.
> 
> 
> ----- Forwarded by Alex Dalitz/Nominet on 03/02/2010 09:28 -----
> 
> Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3 at gmail.com> wrote on 02/02/2010 23:10:40:
> 
>> Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3 at gmail.com>
>> 02/02/2010 23:10
>>
>> To
>>
>> Alexd at nominet.org.uk
>>
>> cc
>>
>> namedroppers at ops.ietf.org
>>
>> Subject
>>
>> Re: [dnsext] Question on NAPTR text format
>>
>> Right, see RFC 4343:
>> "A back-slash followed by only one or two decimal digits is undefined"
>>
>> Donald
>> =============================
>> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-634-2066 (home)
>> 155 Beaver Street
>> Milford, MA 01757 USA
>> d3e3e3 at gmail.com
>>
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>>
>> In message <OF1814005C.703B880F-ON802576BE.00419B44-802576BE.
>> 004271B4 at nominet.or
>> g.uk>, Alexd at nominet.org.uk writes:
>> > Hi -
>> >
>> > I'm hoping somebody can please help me understand how to treat the
>> > following text in a NAPTR/TXT record  :
>> >
>> > "blah\2blah"
>> >
>> > We have from RFC 1035 :
>> >
>> > \X              where X is any character other than a digit (0-9), is
>> >                used to quote that character so that its special meaning
>> >                does not apply.  For example, "\." can be used to place
>> >                a dot character in a label.
>> >
>> > and
>> >
>> > \DDD            where each D is a digit is the octet corresponding to
>> >                the decimal number described by DDD.  The resulting
>> >                octet is assumed to be text and is not checked for
>> >                special meaning.
>> >
>> > So what happens if there is only one digit, instead of three? (i.e. \D)
>> >
>> > Should this be taken as :
>> >
>> > 1) a one digit decimal number specifying an octet between 0 and 9 (e.g.
>> > \002)
>> > 2) the number character itself (e.g. '2')
>> > 3) an error?
> 
>> It's a error because it is undefined.
>>
>> > I've noticed that different libraries take different views on this, and
>> > thought it would be nice to have more common behaviour.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance for your help!
>> >
>> > Alex.
>> --
>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Opendnssec-develop mailing list
> Opendnssec-develop at lists.opendnssec.org
> https://lists.opendnssec.org/mailman/listinfo/opendnssec-develop

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLaVU/AAoJEA8yVCPsQCW5JUEIAJcZZDTEr8rZB0dGJQCbdRQT
0AXUYtq4wxTOSxu3yBpci9kFVnbWbXjr2CfBJNveh3UE6TNZ1atSnc4ym/RjWTcB
jiOYHqvBkdZBajjJikhs+brVUXmiXz6xT/GYeX+SrL0d9KunItkLw4fQ19iGp/t1
UoCSSA9lGZ9sxeXn/KgSRP+pfQ13cZVdNPPjoacbrXTgD/K2R6eRSqO0hs+AKaCi
ao8xnDVB0XUU9+AtWj5I1oKOdvJVx6QXPIxZgyaS6TYsMe/4IVUENXRCx5i6J6Kt
FrAFX9KoJSdNLn84U1ux5lyubw6G1DM0jOxeNe+3Zm36Kt2qHQtu1bTImLeN9ZE=
=Iq+1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----