IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dbound] On (not) moving forward

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 29 March 2016 02:09 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 9EBF512D0B3 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:09:28 -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 zHnEUOYDUf6Q for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:09:27 -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 7485C12D0AA for <dbound@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.114.1] (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 u2T29PEf018545 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:09:26 -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 [192.168.114.1]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:09:25 -0700
Message-ID: <03217F5F-2A2E-47BF-BDFB-23A50008C440@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <56F9E01D.4050007@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <473d619b6c614fceab703c34623afe37@NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com> <BDA80845-43DB-43EC-B371-DD1770A604CA@vpnc.org> <56F8F033.40209@mozilla.org> <CAL0qLwadNjhWVNOCxdypyRZ9yyhuvPWHKCPpb1Ub49y3QT-Hnw@mail.gmail.com> <F65E8756-3FB4-40CD-8FD7-77E2979DDBC6@vpnc.org> <56F9E01D.4050007@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/SyiHZ0-fnF8DerC9jcXPG_MAG_Q>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:55:44 -0700
Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" <dbound@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dbound] On (not) moving forward
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: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 02:09:28 -0000

On 28 Mar 2016, at 18:53, Martin J. Dürst wrote:

> The problem would be with the operators. It's quite possible that DNS 
> operators would start adding such records if there's a standards track 
> spec. I could even imagine them to be motivated to add the relevant 
> records if there is *one* experimental spec. But multiple experimental 
> specs? Not a splitter of a chance, if you as me.

Why not? If they only had to pick one of three, why is that harder than 
picking one of one?

> So I think we better pick one solution. I'd think my main criteria 
> would be 1) any major DNS operator voicing support for it (or already 
> working on something like it), and 2) as simple as possible, but 
> easily extensible in the future.

So far, this WG hasn't been able to do #2. And I'm not sure what you 
mean by #1. What is a "major DNS operator" in this context?

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email