Re: [dbound] draft-brotman-rdbd

"Brotman, Alexander" <Alexander_Brotman@comcast.com> Thu, 28 February 2019 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander_Brotman@comcast.com>
X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDD7129741 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 04:58:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 lvV9xQ0ly_cy for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 04:58:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pacdcmhout01.cable.comcast.com (PACDCMHOUT01.cable.comcast.com [68.87.31.167]) (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 19012130DF1 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 04:58:47 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 44571fa7-9f3ff70000021550-12-5c77db056154
Received: from PACDCEX21.cable.comcast.com (dlpemail-wc-2p.cable.comcast.com [24.40.12.145]) (using TLS with cipher AES256-SHA256 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by pacdcmhout01.cable.comcast.com (SMTP Gateway) with SMTP id DF.5B.05456.50BD77C5; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 07:58:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from PACDCEX19.cable.comcast.com (24.40.1.142) by PACDCEX21.cable.comcast.com (24.40.1.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 07:58:44 -0500
Received: from PACDCEX19.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3aea:a7ff:fe36:8304]) by PACDCEX19.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3aea:a7ff:fe36:8304%19]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 07:58:44 -0500
From: "Brotman, Alexander" <Alexander_Brotman@comcast.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, "dbound@ietf.org" <dbound@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dbound] draft-brotman-rdbd
Thread-Index: AQHUz1Sq/Wg3+yjSZEGxUn4PByjblaX1bWKA//+3/jA=
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 12:58:43 +0000
Message-ID: <8784823acf124fd3ba114794d927c8b2@PACDCEX19.cable.comcast.com>
References: <20190228084640.vgexxwltqmshkf4q@mx4.yitter.info> <20190228105902.4z3o6x7lavkhd4xk@mx4.yitter.info> <f4948c22-f3f9-4427-4814-6adae58d9e76@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <f4948c22-f3f9-4427-4814-6adae58d9e76@cs.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [96.114.156.8]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Forward
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupjleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KR0OCZqMt6uzzGYMNvTYsDn68xWey6fI3d Yvrea+wOzB7PTr5i91jbfZXNY8mSn0wBzFENjDYlGUWpiSUuqWmpecWpdlwKGMAmKTUtvyjV NbEopzIoNSc1EbsykMqU1JzMstQifazG6GM1J6GLKePIzwvsBTesK6af62FsYJxi1cXIwSEh YCJxfBZrFyMXh5DADiaJ7g0NUM4uRomG3/ehnJOMEh8fHWfvYuTkYBOwknj7v50ZJCEi0MAo 0bHjMStIQlhAQ2JWz3wmEFtEQFPi5v6FzBC2lcSv5mtgzSwCqhKvd50Di/MKeEn8vj6DCWLD EkaJ1X9/gBVxCthKTJp8lRHEZhQQk/h+ag3YUGYBcYlbTyAWSAgISCzZc54ZwhaVePn4HyuE bSCxdek+FghbQWL7/m0sIH8yAx20fpc+xBhFiSndD9khbhCUODnzCVS5uMThIztYJzCKz0Ky bRZC9ywk3bOQdC9gZFnFyGNmoWdhrmdsqGdoZr6JEZhKXMLll+9g3D4r4xCjAAejEg9v4I3y GCHWxLLiytxDjBIczEoivLqXgUK8KYmVValF+fFFpTmpxYcYpTlYlMR5j/gBpQTSE0tSs1NT C1KLYLJMHJxSDYxbNhg6fFGZ7iU/S2535SUuyz7OY9tE1zzfvf/c8i33Ci4wM/25zx61f13t 1fX39U/Lu/kHSPBWH3zWpzA5JOlzT0tgetuhVlcObi2bvCju2VPeV8XfmqH2eZeuO1ui7TGG 26+rT/9aO+12HnOQX8+jw2eOXlnHX64qHZ/oajTP1u9T8UPLrkAlluKMREMt5qLiRADxHb11 IQMAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/0FZ0RQKlbKNXhzp8Ck4UZohOIjQ>
Subject: Re: [dbound] draft-brotman-rdbd
X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS tree bounds <dbound.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dbound>, <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dbound/>
List-Post: <mailto:dbound@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound>, <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 12:58:50 -0000


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dbound <dbound-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 6:53 AM
> To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>;; dbound@ietf.org
> 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
> >