Re: [Add] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-add-enterprise-split-dns-01.txt

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:22:53AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I agree with Ben here. This seems out of scope.
> 
> -Ekr

eric, can you give an example of some feature which could be proposed that
you'd find in-scope even though it lacked full throated unalloyed
amplification of the tenets and goals of RFCs 8890, 7624, and 7258?

i ask, because ADD signifies a controversial sea-change to the way DNS has
always been treated, and if some additional signaling would reduce that
controversy for a class of on-path actors who are not third parties, then that
signaling would be in-scope.

i'd hate to think that anyone here had a political agenda which influenced
their technical recommendations. generally speaking, a modern RFC protocol
says "if you want to do _this_, here's a way to do it interoperably." while
"prevent interference by on-path actors" is not a form of interopability,
i think that "publish and consume machine-readable RDNS policy" would be.

as ben mentioned up-thread, one salient use of such signaling would be
better error messages toward end-systems when their prefered RDNS access
method does not work. the alternative is silent failure (bad engineering).

-- 
Paul Vixie