Re: [dbound] draft-brotman-rdbd

["Brotman, Alexander" <[e-mail]>]

--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dbound <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 6:53 AM
> To: Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [dbound] draft-brotman-rdbd
> 
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> Thanks for the good comments.
> 
> On 28/02/2019 10:59, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since this is the place, I read draft-brotman-rdbd-00 and have a few
> > observations.
> >
> > I'm slightly concerned at the way this is being conceived, because I
> > think it has a conceptual separation in it that is troublesome.  It's
> > found here:
> >
> >    RDBD is intended to demonstrate a relationship between registered
> >    domains, not individual hostnames.  That is to say that the
> >    relationship should exist between "example.com" and "dept-
> >    example.com", not "foo.example.com" and "bar.dept-example.com".
> >
> > The problem, of course, is that foo.example.com, bar.dept-example.com,
> > and really.long.set.of.labels.example.com are all _perfectly good_
> > domains.  Now, maybe what the above intends to communicate is that
> > RDBD is intended to demonstrate a relationship between the owner name
> > at an apex and all the subsidiary names in that zone (i.e. up until
> > any subordinate zone cut), and the owner name at an apex and all the
> > subsidiary names in _that_ zone.  Alternatively, maybe what the above
> > intends to communicate is that RDBD is intended to demonstrate a
> > relationship between owner names immediately below a so-called public
> > suffix.  I can imagine use cases for either, though I am not sure
> > they're as general purpose as people might think.
> 
> I think that's Alex's text so I'll leave it to him to
> explain:-) From my POV though, see my answer to Paul Wouters on the (lack of;-
> ) semantics here. (That was on a different list but is at [1].) Not sure if that'll
> clarify or muddy the waters though, so it may be easier to chat about this f2f in
> Prague if we get a chance.
> 
>    [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/DaqhhnrNRSrIePbQTWDLCDuaw6k
[Brotman, Alexander] 

From my perspective, I was looking to create a relationship for the registered domains (I couldn't find a good RFC to use a reference for this), so I believe your comment about the apex is correct.  So looking to know that "example.com" and "dept-example.com" (or "example.com" and "example.co.uk", etc.) should have that link.

> 
> > I am more than a little worried about the parent/secondary split.
> > (Also, both of these are already well-used terms in the DNS, so I
> > really strongly urge some other terms.  We have enough trouble with
> > overloading DNS terms without doing so with two of the most frequently
> > used terms in DNS operations, particularly when this mixes terms from
> > delegation and from zone transfers.)
> 
> Fair point. Better terms welcome. If we don't get handed some, we'll try invent a
> couple.
> 
> I've noted this and a couple of other issues raised in the editor's version on
> github. [2] (And btw, if there're other things from these mail threads I ought
> note there, anyone can just ping me to add such.)
> 
>    [2]
> https://github.com/abrotman/related-domains-by-dns/blob/master/rdbd.txt
> 
> > It isn't clear to me, from the
> > discussion, that it is obviously true in most of the use cases people
> > have that one of the domains people want to talk about is "the main
> > one".  More importantly, it is quite likely that someone trying to
> > query this will have a different idea about which is "main" than the
> > domain operator, so if this isn't a fully bidirectional operation
> > (which it's not in -00) there could easily be problems in use.  (This
> > is part of why SOPA was proposed to be two-way.)
> 
> But if this stays unidirectional, one could always do the trick twice I think. So I'm
> not sure I get why that'd be a problem?
> (Assuming the syntax continues to allow that.)
> 
> I'm also not sure if always-being-bidirectional is the right design myself, (see
> above wrt lack of semantics) but if it were and didn't add a lot of complexity, I'd
> be ok with it.
> 
> > If you're going to do this with TXT records, then you definitely need
> > an underscore label, or the apex name is going to be a mess.  But that
> > will mean that this won't work for DNAME.  That consideration is part
> > of why SOPA defined a new RRTYPE and put the RR at the name that was
> > supposed to be related.
> 
> Yep, fair enough. Personally I think a new RRTYPE is fine and will get a couple of
> issues off the table so is likely the right thing to do. I think Alex is also ok with
> that, in which case, we'll see about whacking out a -01 along those lines before
> the I-D cutoff. (And if not, we'll continue to be rightly beaten up for yet more
> abuse of TXT:-)
> 
[Brotman, Alexander] 

I'm 100% okay with a new RRTYPE, and expected we would do so.  I do apologize for not having that be properly created in -00, but wanted to get some comments on the -00 draft, and ideally a -01 before Prague that incorporates feedback from folks.

> > I hope these comments are useful.  I have limited cycles to spend on
> > IETF stuff these days, but this was always a topic close to my heart
> > (and I'm super annoyed the DBOUND WG failed), so I'll try to keep up.
> 
> Excellent!
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> 
> >
> > A
> >