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

Patch 1 #30

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

Patch 1 #30

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

joaooliveirap
Copy link
Contributor

@joaooliveirap joaooliveirap commented Oct 17, 2023

Purpose of this pull request

The DNS instructions in RFC1034 state that, if a CNAME record is present at a node, no other data should be present. This ensures the data for a canonical name and its aliases cannot be different. Because an apex domain requires NS records and usually other records like MX to make it work, setting a CNAME at the apex would break the "no other data should be present" rule.

The RFC standard is to use type A for apex (ex: example.com) and CNAME for subdomains (ex: www.example.com)

Affected pages

help/cloud-guide/launch/checklist.md

joaooliveirap and others added 5 commits October 16, 2023 17:00
The DNS instructions in RFC1034 (section 3.6.2) state that, if a CNAME record is present at a node, no other data should be present. This ensures the data for a canonical name and its aliases cannot be different. Because an apex domain requires NS records and usually other records like MX to make it work, setting a CNAME at the apex would break the "no other data should be present" rule.
 
As a CNAME record is not allowed to coexist with any other data, having the apex domain as a CNAME can cause issues, for example with MX (mail).
 
The RFC standard is to use type A for apex (ex: example.com) and CNAME for subdomains (ex: www.example.com)
…E record is present at a node, no other data should be present. This ensures the data for a canonical name and its aliases cannot be different. Because an apex domain requires NS records and usually other records like MX to make it work, setting a CNAME at the apex would break the "no other data should be present" rule.

As a CNAME record is not allowed to coexist with any other data, having the apex domain as a CNAME can cause issues, for example with MX (mail).

The RFC standard is to use type A for apex (ex: example.com) and CNAME for subdomains (ex: www.example.com)
…E record is present at a node, no other data should be present. This ensures the data for a canonical name and its aliases cannot be different. Because an apex domain requires NS records and usually other records like MX to make it work, setting a CNAME at the apex would break the "no other data should be present" rule.

As a CNAME record is not allowed to coexist with any other data, having the apex domain as a CNAME can cause issues, for example with MX (mail).

The RFC standard is to use type A for apex (ex: example.com) and CNAME for subdomains (ex: www.example.com)
…E record is present at a node, no other data should be present. This ensures the data for a canonical name and its aliases cannot be different. Because an apex domain requires NS records and usually other records like MX to make it work, setting a CNAME at the apex would break the "no other data should be present" rule.

As a CNAME record is not allowed to coexist with any other data, having the apex domain as a CNAME can cause issues, for example with MX (mail).

The RFC standard is to use type A for apex (ex: example.com) and CNAME for subdomains (ex: www.example.com)
@hguthrie hguthrie added internal Differentiate between community and staff member duplicate This issue or pull request already exists labels Oct 17, 2023
@hguthrie
Copy link
Collaborator

Closing, these changes have been made

@hguthrie hguthrie closed this Oct 17, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
duplicate This issue or pull request already exists internal Differentiate between community and staff member
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants