IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dbound] On (not) moving forward

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sun, 27 March 2016 01:05 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 B84C912D0AF for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 H8WAjpCX0sjS for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 768F912D095 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.36] (50-1-98-216.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.216]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u2R150uD079411 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:05:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-216.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.216] claimed to be [10.32.60.36]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:05:00 -0700
Message-ID: <1A6F8665-E849-4471-84BC-32D238B0A69C@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <56F73097.5040906@dcrocker.net>
References: <20160326025652.14512.qmail@ary.lan> <2F22DF36-B8A9-4CE8-86F2-8592CC8283AB@viagenie.ca> <C0F8F796-7488-44B8-A9D8-CFD2D64EBB5A@virtualized.org> <56F73097.5040906@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/gtNOFTobyubswS6EcQhNwAs8MpA>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:07:53 -0700
Cc: dbound@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dbound] On (not) moving forward
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: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 01:05:08 -0000

On 26 Mar 2016, at 18:00, Dave Crocker wrote:

> TXT records, under an _underscore-based naming scheme, works just 
> fine.

...but only if there is no zone cut where you want to put them. As 
Andrew pointed out upstream, some of the use cases for DBOUND require 
that an owner be able to say "at this node, ...", not "at the node above 
me, ..." because the responsible party can't put records at the node 
below them.

> Deploys easily.  Has no usage conflicts.
>
> SRV.  DKIM. Etc. Etc. Etc...

Fully agree on that. I'm in the pro-TXT fold as much as I'm in the 
new-RRtype-if-you-need-it fold.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email