IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dbound] DBOUND - updated use cases?

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Thu, 29 September 2022 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.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 BDE7DC14F743 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redbarn.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TwaRj9PmyAQP for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from util.redbarn.org (util.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::222]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7682C14F73B for <dbound@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by util.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4936F167A42; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 20:10:21 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=redbarn.org; s=util; t=1664482221; bh=tcId1tEszw37YG7aQrxq6PdB+xfwSDe2Tgp4yTOEDpA=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=TQp1LnVleoXR+tf/K3ChDyMRJWMwUXcjCAMsuGbt8Ah/Vyxt0jJYmFrIHdhNeocxq I4iNMrxcYNghBi9yw6fHZQgMmwsgfYSjTGh1rzdVrPIyrK0+pKSVZfniG/9yv0je4y alw4MQLuuPN2Ds0hnxLFRC4L2+si4e00YZ+K9ZWU=
Received: from [24.104.150.175] (dhcp-175.access.rits.tisf.net [24.104.150.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E880C3FCF; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 20:10:21 +0000 (UTC)
To: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Cc: dbound@ietf.org
References: <bd3a32cb-dd41-b195-e46d-419611000ceb@amazon.com> <99bc93ec-9be6-7abb-90c0-01f0d59c4aeb@amazon.com> <20220929145635.ojb4gplm4bqbqdcu@crankycanuck.ca> <CAGrS0FLo-kLHB34p2qX7Sf3y2piDWFe59ROm3vRudGG-Bzi8zQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <088d3e98-c97b-4f05-53e1-c4410a721f87@redbarn.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:10:22 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.57
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGrS0FLo-kLHB34p2qX7Sf3y2piDWFe59ROm3vRudGG-Bzi8zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/aI5RDyLaITFpoOyLaH3AnztU9G0>
Subject: Re: [dbound] DBOUND - updated use cases?
X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 29 Sep 2022 20:10:25 -0000

i sort of liked the SOPA record, and partly because of the Internet 
Blackout. it also reminded me that when RFC 2308 repurposed the SOA 
MINIMUM field for use as a negative cache max-age, we missed an 
opportunity to reserve bits in that longword. we probably will never 
need a four billion second negative cache age; 255 seconds was enough. 
if we had bits available in the SOA RR, we could use one to signal that 
the downward delegations contained in this zone refer to different real 
and corporate persons than the one operating this zone, rather than only 
to different DNS editor/publisher roles who might be the same real or 
corporate person as the editor/publisher of this zone. --vixie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email