Re: [dbound] [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dcrocker-dns-perimeter-00.txt

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Thu, 04 April 2019 01:36 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@bbiw.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 80CD2120353 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bbiw.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 gCwIW5DHuViV for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 205F312034A for <dbound@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (108-226-162-63.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.226.162.63]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id x341btXc008000 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:37:56 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1554341876; bh=np1BaEqvnuVhKTBeZPMCPpI0b3lmnMzdguLonVqP8hI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=kmnw8cdBMvquhHrVM7QOKMpnMQjsySg+NgsN2yaJCbhF/grVhWzSlKby0OJ7zfwg+ rE/W4AdEeNKd8En/nSIc/5J8QUxc7FgO4xQ4YNGcoY3MuKxAnEG5wwLjC7uPg8B/We ezA82sLIakrRdOdJkOsUdicCAx0FlobuwW2oiwk4=
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
Cc: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dbound@ietf.org
References: <20190403175820.8391420115F376@ary.qy> <2445c121-f77b-0fa2-ca6a-402479abb5a7@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1904031430270.21189@ary.qy> <7e61b445-3844-f769-6a59-16fa396388d0@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1904031459480.21189@ary.qy> <AFE01C0B-E47E-4D4E-B60C-FA0810BBE8F8@gmail.com> <310cc611-e1f0-2fbb-6efe-9d266869d025@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1904032056230.22661@ary.qy> <da2b2c91-8b9f-1254-d159-997bb77c1a9e@bbiw.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1904032126480.22887@ary.qy>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Message-ID: <a5f53382-b1f5-bf9b-aa3e-1fc2e93786f4@bbiw.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:36:06 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1904032126480.22887@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/dRdZC5AVNEckk6Fm37VTZCow9dg>
Subject: Re: [dbound] [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dcrocker-dns-perimeter-00.txt
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, 04 Apr 2019 01:36:19 -0000

On 4/3/2019 6:27 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>>  by a specific label in the query?  I'm reasonably sure the answer is
>>>  "never" but you might ask dnsop to be sure.
>>
>> my proposal does not 'add a feature to the DNS'.  It uses existing DNS 
>> mechanisms and does not change the DNS protocol or its formats.


People often confuse additions to /use/ of a service with changes /to/ 
the service.  This would be the former, not the latter.

Or perhaps you can point to the DNS specs and registries, showing where 
they specify the constrained set of Additional responses that I'm 
calling for modifying?  I'm not finding such a list.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net