Re: [Add] Zone ownership in DNS server discovery

["Vinny Parla (vparla)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

 

So if I understand the statement below, it is entirely up to an algorithm of
the implementor, which could differ from endpoint to endpoint or browser to
browse, to choose either to use the authoritative vs the recursive resolver.

 

Did I understand this correctly?

 

Thanks,

 

-Vinny

 

From: Add <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Tommy Jensen
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 12:32 PM
To: Jim Reid <[e-mail]>
Cc: ADD Mailing list <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Add] Zone ownership in DNS server discovery

 

Changing subject line to avoid the noise on Martin's single use case. This
is a separate topic.

 

>From the WG charter:

 

> Define a mechanism that allows communication of DNS resolver
> information to clients for use in selection decisions. This could be
> part of the mechanism used for discovery, above

 

If I know "doh.example.com" is authoritative for "foo.example.com", I may
prefer to take *.foo.example.com queries directly to it instead of using an
intermediary recursive. I consider this to be separate from policies such as
"I perform filtering" because being authoritative or designated isn't a
policy / requirement and I can still choose to use an intermediate recursive
if I want. This information can also be readily authenticated since TLS
already gives us a mechanism for conveying and validating ownership claims
relative to a domain name (as opposed to a network name).

 

Thanks,

Tommy

================================================

The latest in Windows Internet Protocols:

  Native gRPC support:  <https://aka.ms/grpcblogpost>
https://aka.ms/grpcblogpost 

  DNS over HTTPS:  <https://aka.ms/dohblogpost> https://aka.ms/dohblogpost 

 

 

  _____  

From: Jim Reid <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 8:37 AM
To: Tommy Jensen <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: ADD Mailing list <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: Re: [Add] [EXTERNAL] My single use case 

 



> On 10 Sep 2020, at 16:27, Tommy Jensen
<Jensen.Thomas=[e-mail]
<mailto:Jensen.Thomas=[e-mail]> > wrote:
> 
> > Specifically, I want to NOT learn about whether the resolver does [...]
> 
> +1, I couldn't agree more.

Ditto.

> One exception would be zone ownership for me as I don't consider that a
policy, but I agree that's a scenario separate from the one you are
describing and should be kept separate.

What has zone ownership - whatever that means - got to do with resolution
transports or resolver selection? How is it relevant to this WG?