Re: draft-jennings-app-dns-update-00

Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> Tue, 08 July 2008 05:59 UTC

Return-Path: <apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2889F3A69D1; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 22:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD5C28C0EA for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 22:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V0SeosyvBnPU for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 22:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from office.denic.de (gw-office.denic.de [81.91.160.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034F43A69D1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 22:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1KG6Ee-0008Gf-Hz; Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:59:32 +0200
Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1KG6Dc-0001me-Gz; Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:58:28 +0200
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:58:28 +0200
From: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: draft-jennings-app-dns-update-00
Message-ID: <20080708055828.GA6547@x27.adm.denic.de>
References: <20080707024501.AE0A33A6947@core3.amsl.com> <89A47DA0-8E2F-4247-A21F-E9B1777A0856@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <89A47DA0-8E2F-4247-A21F-E9B1777A0856@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org

On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 09:12:24PM -0700, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> The draft proposes a HTTP based API to update DNS records similar to  
> the system at dyndns.org. Be pleased to get peoples thoughts but I'm  

a cursory review raises these questions from a DNS protocol and operational
perspective:

1) We do have Dynamic Updates and EPP as "provisioning" protocols.
   Which deficiencies is this approach trying to address in particular?

2) The list of RR types is pretty arbitrary. Some RR type independence in
   the spirit of RFC 3597 would be urgently needed, making error "501"
   not occur.

3) How is the SOA serial increment initiated?

4) Interaction with DNSSEC needs to be described

5) What kind of intra-RRSet ordering is assumed in section 3?

6) Why would a user be allowed to add/modify/delete arbitrary RRSets?

NITS:
   o SRV RRs require domain names as targets , not IP addresses
   o The reference to RFC 1464 ngling - which is OK, since 1464 has no
     practical relevance
   o The draft is aiming at Standards Track, but references the Experimental
     RFC 5205 in a way that should be normative

-Peter
_______________________________________________
Apps-Discuss mailing list
Apps-Discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss