IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] Draft-pp-add-resinfo

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 19 August 2020 02:13 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFC783A109E for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pobO1jUapCba for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51E253A1098 for <add@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BWWY62h6Wz3F6; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 04:13:46 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1597803226; bh=NFVlttXHUFCNps14tMrK4WOfGHGijltbf7OW5QlJCvk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=mXxn23O8E99HpyRt30Banc7BSxSc0OrK08NRsmSGyafpaPOUUZ8TsE+HXq9tq7lM+ rexASpVG1DsR0oO7HBWm0tK6VBMX9prcF3gf3J64gwEBRnJUwA453cJSOF3zdycYig oEWpwdMumqITcMLuePsGEOo71aj0kxXqx1I8rs4k=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rqa15frJQqTH; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 04:13:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 04:13:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EF1E16029BA2; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 22:13:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6BBC384C6; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 22:13:43 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 22:13:43 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: ADD Mailing list <add@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+GDGNTUxzTNwKXwPhBpsUBB583WSNUxUmM_7m=q8Ssppw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2008182208330.355536@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <B98873C4-2943-4D1B-B751-D7B3A6945323@comcast.com> <CADyWQ+GDGNTUxzTNwKXwPhBpsUBB583WSNUxUmM_7m=q8Ssppw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/G9uSVw0PHBRovwCUmEJBoV-IqlE>
Subject: Re: [Add] Draft-pp-add-resinfo
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 02:13:51 -0000

On Mon, 17 Aug 2020, Tim Wicinski wrote:

> The Resolver Info draft was originally adopted by DNSOP, so DNS people are good with this work.  
> The registry it creates allows for more expressive information to be extracted.  My only wish 
> is the authors could create several initial entries based on some of the work they've done
> implementing it.

Yes indeed. If we don't have any entries, why are we starting this work.

Personally I think "private-" is a better prefix than "temp-".

It would also be nice if the server had a standarized way of relaying
its public name, so that any TLSA records associated with it could
be found in the public DNS.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email