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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 04 April 2019 01:25 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 6B4FE1201B1 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:25:17 -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=dcrocker.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 Kq8MVF6_4Kf9 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:25:16 -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 021951201A6 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:25:15 -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 x341QsTb007214 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:26:54 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1554341214; bh=fJv/5F+6nnpV6ydKDhz2h9fog+ydnZ1rrr5R2HDuh78=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:References:Reply-To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ACDrnvbhUVmXisqIzNFJ74iI0P496jlNHg4NABcCEsTbzxBp4ZG+pT+rPfYgcfQEZ dsa8irhZG235DaNz0xgZlXifTxDj0hAI8iwGrPzc2b3wWR5xOosMU+nt5eI/i8l3YB 8JNuIgQw/qCwGREa5bofUmhp9LqBT6Kmjy+Gk3jE=
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <8ca4dde0-2ac2-fc95-7670-3d0188e65499@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:25:04 -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/PISrFha5QdVigIdzVRpKvY5KQ84>
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 01:25:17 -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, which of course, my proposal does do, as 
an optimization.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net