Re: [dbound] [art] [DNSOP] Related Domains By DNS (RDBD) Draft

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 28/02/2019 02:03, John Levine wrote:
> Well, OK, if that's an issue you spread the names out like we did with
> VBR.  If the primary is foo.com and the secondary is bar.org:
> 
> bar.org._same.foo.com. SAME .	; yes, we're a primary for whatever name that was
> 
> _same.bar.org. SAME foo.com. ; yes, we're secondary for foo.com.
> 
> This makes it somewhat more difficult to scrape all the secondaries
> for a primary which may be a feature.

Yep, that could work. I still prefer the design in our
-00 though (sorry:-) as in your scheme here foo.com's zone
will have to change with every change in a linkage whereas
in the -00 design, changes are only needed in each of the
bar.org zones that actually do change. (I think the counter
to that might relate to difficulty in synchronising changes
to keys/selectors in our -00 design which can have unexpected
effects as we saw in the case of DKIM and a particular mail
corpus leak in 2016;-).

To be clear: for my purposes I'd be ok with various of the
designs we've been discussing - even if I think some are
better than others, they're nearly equally ok. I think the
main thing is to try keep it simple (as you've been doing)
and to try find out if people might publish such values
(absent which, there's no much point in publishing an RFC).

Cheers,
S.