Re: [dbound] [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dcrocker-dns-perimeter-00.txt

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Thu, 04 April 2019 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
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 ABFAA1201B2 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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=bbiw.net
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 wNjzNBIEDsKU for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 2A1C11201B1 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (108-226-162-63.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.226.162.63]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id x341PmMf007140 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:25:48 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1554341148; bh=Ol2LD5KWeV4qdN1DLyvkDQFd+HsggusOr3vGqojBVqM=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=W2UN++0r6U6BctNg6W4vKLYRkXIq23nWbQgK3ysPhTC02R6rT86NFcgVQgEnRMC/G 0BV8ad7uPw4E7QtBAj4MdvS5Df/7PxyZ3MSMkSd7n3XIehXfo5P1isFlkpcfZUYfUz YcVv6Pg5Z1ccG2UpyHuwYUnOLYWFNmSnVXSWm3XM=
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
Cc: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dbound@ietf.org
References: <20190403175820.8391420115F376@ary.qy> <2445c121-f77b-0fa2-ca6a-402479abb5a7@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1904031430270.21189@ary.qy> <7e61b445-3844-f769-6a59-16fa396388d0@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1904031459480.21189@ary.qy> <AFE01C0B-E47E-4D4E-B60C-FA0810BBE8F8@gmail.com> <310cc611-e1f0-2fbb-6efe-9d266869d025@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1904032056230.22661@ary.qy>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Message-ID: <da2b2c91-8b9f-1254-d159-997bb77c1a9e@bbiw.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:23:58 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1904032056230.22661@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/5OxxQ46J81ex_UlyQgVkdRay6L8>
Subject: Re: [dbound] [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dcrocker-dns-perimeter-00.txt
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, 04 Apr 2019 01:24:13 -0000

On 4/3/2019 6:00 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> Well, OK, here's a question for you: when's the last time an RFC added a 
> feature to the DNS that puts records in the additional section triggered 
> by a specific label in the query?  I'm reasonably sure the answer is 
> "never" but you might ask dnsop to be sure.

my proposal does not 'add a feature to the DNS'.  It uses existing DNS 
mechanisms and does not change the DNS protocol or its formats.

Your original phrasing was better, because it was in terms of requiring 
a 'modification' to the server.


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net