Re: [dbound] The proposals before us

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 12 September 2016 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 053D812B539 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=EBj3jXxP; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=MRo3KXQf
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 Mtt23p9S2HLJ for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
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-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C768A12B33C for <dbound@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31838 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2016 14:17:06 -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=7c5d.57d6b8e2.k1609; bh=QC0xq+lOD7rD/m9WdleTtxYAbmh5m9nR1a0fpbrW3cg=; b=EBj3jXxPsbTcBixMwUZUgm6rVHrHryEs2+o7Kk5S2cjZ9a2qIBtn/SZjVzmIUo4K6t6jxFKCkoGsyc8ve9sku8XSFHUiYFnRHkehsixXOfBKg883Upl81m8K9isxLpSJdMKQ68e5uUeIABWij6dI5wvWQ5H1HjAGdilo2CM2cUwoCnclqnvb3jBUTQYQLzfxDpcRxi3Vuomot9j4G7Q42adtODStUfbzim+DSEX3c1VGjYFTWZ+I7OqTL8guxFRP
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=7c5d.57d6b8e2.k1609; bh=QC0xq+lOD7rD/m9WdleTtxYAbmh5m9nR1a0fpbrW3cg=; b=MRo3KXQfABw8TYRBVqGv5arFABuyq082MIab4Qvn1UdNLeVKLd3JnmnztT9aNDD2MKCWo8btGAiNxI45803yokWNgZII31RyrAyuDhTYLs/3JIMvLuPkuhFFCeBZEeA26HswCWjewQf7A5SAJWd4ueyHFjgsoCTpfHOCaa3VoYKogwa3MbCaEB2+yCYyUAYMbzh4ts5NUfU6f+huh1XtGusRcTqfL92CfvISLO+lGSddfsQ+OJPcBdbgW1N/0Siw
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 Sep 2016 14:17:06 -0000
Date: 12 Sep 2016 10:17:07 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609121000130.61420@ary.local>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Casey Deccio" <casey@deccio.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAEKtLiS8zo6s-b0UUbGYFQimKWzbTgvofPxZNOB5DEVX88imKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160910211314.47140.qmail@ary.lan> <8C13CBDD-A213-47F0-8755-C1A5F0190EE9@deccio.net> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609102313420.53927@ary.lan> <DBEFC5F6-E81A-46D9-AFF2-7FB970EB69DB@deccio.net> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609120844250.61090@ary.local> <CAEKtLiS8zo6s-b0UUbGYFQimKWzbTgvofPxZNOB5DEVX88imKA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/NTqH0cNOVo4udhK3L0RYoA1Qg3s>
Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" <dbound@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dbound] The proposals before us
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, 12 Sep 2016 14:34:38 -0000

>> Ah, of course.  Oops.  I mostly wanted to clarify that odup does a tree
>> walk, so if a hostile sender used addresses like
>> a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k.l.m.n.o.p.q.r.s.t.u.v.w.x.y.z.blah.example it could
>> produce a lot of noise traffic.
>
> Yes - it all depends on the DNS setup on the other side.  That is common to
> both proposals.

Nope.  In my proposal the number of lookups depends on the number of 
boundaries, not the number of components.  There'd be a lookup for

a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k.l.m.n.o.p.q.r.s.t.u.v.w.x.y.z.blah._bound.example

which would be matched by *._bound.example.  If that returned an answer 
saying that there's a boundary at .example, there'd be a second lookup

a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k.l.m.n.o.p.q.r.s.t.u.v.w.x.y.z._bound.blah.example

that would return NXDOMAIN if there's no subdelegation, and then it's 
done.  The design uses on the closest encloser rule for wildcards to let 
it publish irregular boundaries like *.uk and *.ac.uk.

> My point in the earlier email was that the algorithm should be well defined
> and with a sane default, so once deployed, if nobody does anything
> different, their behavior doesn't change.

That'd be fine with me, but I wouldn't count on implementers paying more 
attention to this default than to the one for the current PSL.

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