IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dbound] Updated draft-levine-orgboundary-03

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 12 November 2015 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B401B306D for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:05:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.137
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 FlPpsrU02qAP for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:05:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE9541B3070 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:05:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 43302 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2015 17:05:38 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=a925.5644c6e2.k1511; bh=Dz0mWIkYLrG2rrZZpVZ2GtV4UCP/MSLbK8xIHEmOXyw=; b=nEA5fHRkIZEXOLtjM9DNUB92gSBFS85LnluY6YiJVuTfZv45otK1qQjEP9ZxvsJuK1gX7psGyQFI/MCKXujS4ZfPVeF23VBv1HhntF9WWxROf3vZv9TlwnK5G9CgG9v836d/1wRkzzFY4X/ixNpOoQqKQRAEE0xl+YRAAn8Ji4VG0mwNmGUR2+O7OQ44XQi8U7Ebcs/0h9G0lYAAC/rDBSnyNpnmjDd6iMWn/gYc/T8Ro8wf1wwN5jZOEi4tDs8/
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=a925.5644c6e2.k1511; bh=Dz0mWIkYLrG2rrZZpVZ2GtV4UCP/MSLbK8xIHEmOXyw=; b=oLq1leHU9GsVnvyCeWPI+j4dbzrtjrRaE3rlOrfBfgtFpyvRgOV2ut+Q7eeSyrYybpNNohyu776PjPN1qfQhcYAtIWtSAKdV7wAsK9LKZ3giPCYJlRAarQ3ZZQ/RBxY9k7FWOUbN2c3ERUjkPdVDhTI6+3ASChXHDmez0rQWpZlpPY3l56y5WiJ+ZeIARlLFMXBOEnRwadypL4nWu3y+4jFMCkTUNoduLMBpm0OwrUNJ1qgxtTpy3UGUmL4TTU4W
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 12 Nov 2015 17:05:37 -0000
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:05:37 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1511121201440.7480@ary.lan>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Casey Deccio <casey@deccio.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAEKtLiQAiQ2gnv5828yifGCZb_0oH1kTSLsx8p0EaPoqA-k=ig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1511091838260.92970@ary.local> <20151112021154.2231.qmail@ary.lan> <CAEKtLiQAiQ2gnv5828yifGCZb_0oH1kTSLsx8p0EaPoqA-k=ig@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/Kj_RdSuMXG4I3uqWK-nXxuM-_FA>
Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" <dbound@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dbound] Updated draft-levine-orgboundary-03
X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 12 Nov 2015 17:05:40 -0000

> - Why the use of wildcards?  The time complexity doesn't improve with
> this.  It just seems like added complexity, so you can query for the entire
> name, rather than label-by-label.  But as, mentioned previously, this is
> revealing to higher level DNS authorities.

Wildcards make the lookup O(1) rather than O(N).  I think that's an 
important difference.

> - What would be the road map to deploy this "now", given existing
> application behavior?

The obvious approach would be to write some libraries with interfaces 
similar to what people use for the PSL now and swap it in.  I suppose that 
for a while it could default back to the PSL if it doesn't find any BOUND 
records in the DNS.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email