Re: [dbound] The proposals before us

Casey Deccio <casey@deccio.net> Mon, 12 September 2016 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <casey@deccio.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 7386212B0A3 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 06:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=deccio.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 QmudogPIfL9M for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 06:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x229.google.com (mail-vk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AEBB12B0A6 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 06:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id v189so133847594vkv.1 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 06:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=deccio.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CqKSK0kwAPSQqT0VqZ14RyRIiN5MiSoSuEi47QqDR5I=; b=SlVg2NmFOQQ6Bvabeqo5363+nHszR5ZxXL4GjZWPx9h5MTUHF5cHhJxDot4jo6+VRC hRVtzz1xi3payTUahaiZ8Ql4mQegcv7acvmYLJYWP0uTb/YXh49dXcDoWLAsXl8Jn3gx dmdvPc76UwSMdxiuk5PfqnbVbTuWV39CK60QA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CqKSK0kwAPSQqT0VqZ14RyRIiN5MiSoSuEi47QqDR5I=; b=IngXFalO2jTwLiaHppLmn9rUAfLAXvleT1riDzijsTj7nzgRZHfo+YeouKoHV1NfEd sH5hvZhp81WxbRK1ptcerWOTM4o+yHhdE2ErI/Iz0KKZ275xlI8ByCZj9JaphFWqIrzz T3nxPygnWs6uMwkB4/M3TM9bCkFZD3epYbr6JyNN5FzdVzKU5mGD2DGAIFim6toBV2l0 ZcUVq/WyEbvAgZSzR/ubHODJb3W/VUb7yXnb4mbSATv+VQR5bC2EjvANFNO/waIXFXCL w7isDqlZ1yxccUt/XZX74GXilkOiM0E3hBbUcp2z7RTuQi2T6gfTF1jHdexlxilkpvaQ Oalw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOLjm/wrDBqcvx/9S6gWNeNhu45CMb7O4vkVLMfGVLSCLYpiVeCeTFpP9utHm1DXsRGWzXAtNG74fQzsA==
X-Received: by 10.31.164.16 with SMTP id n16mr10855611vke.18.1473687144876; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 06:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.70.77 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 06:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609120844250.61090@ary.local>
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> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609120844250.61090@ary.local>
From: Casey Deccio <casey@deccio.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:32:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEKtLiS8zo6s-b0UUbGYFQimKWzbTgvofPxZNOB5DEVX88imKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114165eac7e287053c4f8676
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/UEEMUI5XlbipPG-46UthA8r3u20>
Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" <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 13:32:32 -0000

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:07 AM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Yes - it all depends on the DNS setup on the other side.  That is common to
both proposals.


> 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.
>

Yes - no obvious default of the nature of a name is the reason why the PSL
and DBOUND exist :)

My point in the earlier email was that the algorithm should be well defined
and with a sane default, so once deployed, if nobody does anything
different, their behavior doesn't change.

Casey