Re: [dbound] draft-brotman-rdbd

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 28 February 2019 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 F29C9130F04 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:47:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=F5BB3R30; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=nXg8Z/uG
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 CjzUhdgbM-rt for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 5C134130EBE for <dbound@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 65292 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2019 16:47:17 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=ff0a.5c781095.k1902; bh=Ud9OVUoOGlvciIkWbhxnJcdxDwlqhm9lgZxJnvc0Xx4=; b=F5BB3R30VY1sGLZaEXXWmkNmx2P2PZHDG6kz7m7xlrjNrk55C5aFDvLCugTCqYX1DqaCInBztyrD8Tf2me/gyIl1FmFP95g5XficoEIxpv/iX+nqE30lMpM91eoOO/zp7BmZjbRgN4ooXMTrvCzFS/z70M+NPZ3wWLuqYA76VKCBv7fJ7QDmVSbk7OyeHeyH/phJSlww+2zUmHSCV+vOktSW/b6+VXVk9PNfXk2Gg/77mzXMTDSMX49S0a0HOQCM
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=ff0a.5c781095.k1902; bh=Ud9OVUoOGlvciIkWbhxnJcdxDwlqhm9lgZxJnvc0Xx4=; b=nXg8Z/uGEyqj+mjmd6UP9Nu1VO/UUZuv0uj8OzzcxfOSOuh9wgCk320dB2tlDaOCZT83yvY69Ja7m9pH/eMmrpttysRzWA2LtVh6d1L0B3sZwm8tpg5G93YmimpLunRz0xZmR3UoDDA3TEhb6FMGcvCLE5Jkr/Z04/j2Yz+zlba/9vjWeUAdcyQH7HPydT6+vqrf2jF9KlCep3bmci4MgRGedk/1dFTrcPM/xSut5gbfefkgRP7O3rQt6O2GZIFr
Received: from ary.local ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 28 Feb 2019 16:47:16 -0000
Received: by ary.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id ACC91200F70322; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 11:47:16 -0500 (EST)
Date: 28 Feb 2019 11:47:16 -0500
Message-Id: <20190228164716.ACC91200F70322@ary.local>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dbound@ietf.org
Cc: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
In-Reply-To: <20190228105902.4z3o6x7lavkhd4xk@mx4.yitter.info>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/Ta6WA_nK8B8DXWBTqJrHlQ6RySM>
Subject: Re: [dbound] draft-brotman-rdbd
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, 28 Feb 2019 16:47:20 -0000

In article <20190228105902.4z3o6x7lavkhd4xk@mx4.yitter.info>; you write:
>   RDBD is intended to demonstrate a relationship between registered
>   domains, not individual hostnames. ...

I think the intention here is what's known in DMARC-ese as an
organizational domain, which in practice means a domain whose
immediate parent is in the PSL.

I agree with your point about RRs, and as I've said a few times,
depending on what you think is hard or what is easy, the signatures
seem to add implemenation complexity without adding much actual
utility.

R's,
John

PS:

>(and I'm super annoyed the DBOUND WG failed), so I'll try to keep up.

Me too and I never really understood why.  Near as I can tell, my
proposal and Casey's were quite similar, but Casey's had a whole bunch
of added stuff that was hard to understand (I didn't) so people gave
up.