Re: [dbound] The proposals before us

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 12 September 2016 13:07 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 2BADB12B229 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 06:07:56 -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=gETBiVw/; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=cX3jCEAK
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 MsARnusMLlTs for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 06:07:51 -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 994C712B1B4 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 06:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 14222 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2016 13:07:49 -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=378c.57d6a8a5.k1609; bh=6q33n5M0h9INYSOmtJCWG0VOEoyMnj7AuD5he68wZWM=; b=gETBiVw/8oTWC9bDoWsGMjo8INZd2QQ/syFBi/znwGOESiC3TadI4hU4ElykkdzvpTIGz0jsFqPwm1XMXhuidirD1Syu9EVpeH3Z19hUh4kwRaAFPs9zw6IaBe1vSnhWNNnphNOSRYJLFk6KhPgF8mN3WaefkzaBt2jQ20YvJmvcXcx9JSrnMFKEEcF02Z3qnXOFrZziNxuXlOMO+Vu6S1bcV5QHcNUmpTn7ZS3RB/GVqS73QI16rsozpkSxtGuk
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=378c.57d6a8a5.k1609; bh=6q33n5M0h9INYSOmtJCWG0VOEoyMnj7AuD5he68wZWM=; b=cX3jCEAKdEen/uTHKWkGr3hZJ1WfTY37gJJKAQ0WD/jxo6YQO+EJo/yZJ2V4fV4TS/JHJgAXmJ0COEolPOlUp5RnAKc/h4Qn8Y7nvsNY8SOP2Tn2CeQfyDxnnBwCrBbIXu6brGDRG+3CFRmJLrfas21wN7Vh6JxwUep5lXUxnrk3l73cKV4skOdR3OLblGCsyn5XRDTcSTlOdCN5P32VZ+AdFgnTiI5n4z23AQ16yfqLz02OEvyEyi3pcNzm9ido
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 13:07:48 -0000
Date: 12 Sep 2016 09:07:49 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609120844250.61090@ary.local>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Casey Deccio" <casey@deccio.net>
In-Reply-To: <DBEFC5F6-E81A-46D9-AFF2-7FB970EB69DB@deccio.net>
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>
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/T8977vVtPZM5Yq2pJqgkOIywn6c>
Cc: 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 13:07:56 -0000

> Sure.  Please see Section 6, "Examples":

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.

> Fair enough.  Admittedly, the principles behind the current PSL are 
> actually more robust than the current algorithm, data, and 
> implementations. ...

In practice, people will write libraries to wrap the calls, and they'll do 
whatever they do if they don't find the data they're looking for.  I agree 
there's no obvious default, since you can't tell by inspection whether a 
TLD is a private vanity TLD, a gTLD that delegates at the second level, or 
something else.

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