IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dbound] Requirements for administrative boundary data sources?

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 11 April 2016 13:34 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 974F812EEC4 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
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] 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 89-KrhYtkq4D for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 ADE3812EEBD for <dbound@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.122] (50-1-98-216.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.216]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u3BDYlEE097005 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:34:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-216.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.216] claimed to be [10.32.60.122]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:34:47 -0700
Message-ID: <8B580AD0-E10D-42C5-8806-AFA5291FD29D@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAH8yC8mwh0ddwu3MXdvJ9_JEccmcVx8F+tLi4ckps9Ru-ExaQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH8yC8maLvy34_visC3XvvUcxSBUD50ZFq6NQ4rV7Fve-=rHGA@mail.gmail.com> <570B5E12.6030909@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <CAH8yC8mwh0ddwu3MXdvJ9_JEccmcVx8F+tLi4ckps9Ru-ExaQw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/EdJK_M2Sbop6XqCTHFTEOT6bPcA>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:03:58 -0700
Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" <dbound@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dbound] Requirements for administrative boundary data sources?
X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:34:50 -0000

On 11 Apr 2016, at 1:35, Jeffrey Walton wrote:

> If the PSL is moved into owner/operators web services and out of DNS,
> then it may be easier to build a new system (say a PSL.txt like a
> Robots.txt) rather than retrofitting (adding DNS infrastructure and
> pushing record changes into DNS).

The distribution of the DBOUND information is not nearly as important as 
the collection of the inputs. If DBOUND specifies a distribution using 
X, it should be trivial for someone to collect that information using X 
and repackage it in Y.

As Martin points out, the most logical way for the owner of zone to say 
the zone's policy is in that zone or a child of the zone. To me, that's 
the most important part of the DBOUND work.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email