Re: [dbound] The proposals before us

Casey Deccio <casey@deccio.net> Mon, 12 September 2016 14:43 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 B6A8012B733 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:43:27 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 XFJPJ8GCZD3z for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com (mail-vk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (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 B401312B2AA for <dbound@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id f76so136883559vke.0 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:26:27 -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=PTTPfLSDYmtIta4F1lYH8vY/scuL8uwnO86Xc/53yKs=; b=YAZYjNJ0Exx0XSABjcHXA7t3Bw6DUQKSt+CQ1uHKq97UA5FGaCvUsir/5kXtE076uH ogZux4KbbSSSBz7MXgjD9GkG/cfC1DZVBh5Kr3WYVD9mmg/9JeZQDgMdG2IezRY/kefW /eOupGZZT20wfSn4Qm9YE5FL1q+Px2+fR8HUs=
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=PTTPfLSDYmtIta4F1lYH8vY/scuL8uwnO86Xc/53yKs=; b=WlhkJMqYHSPH1v+zYHNMbg6bNB/T8ySzV0MtlZEj1GIdn9ULVccdMZ9fgrVa/UMb2q SYEc45tElzltTw4Y7mGhs5fwNPseNcn3iL1fqURNWmv/yXqbJVWa2LMPSOs9jDSqXTJD 6fXfmmdIJO5UGkxEPnO4eAdI/ECWhKxr9lJmzao+A6I9D2x0b8SMM4nve1fK8UfQ5Pr3 Dyv7bofeDLE32mzL+ycD4TfCJdEvoNedlN+IRQa0f+taxp/6mF7hFj492umt/PmLy1Wk flVobPSqNUBhZw6X8I3qc1ECkBVgGvNHg1BDJCdmsSZLrLxlKFr34u2pHAR31VxVi4Xa LC9Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwPlZBqnB9UEt3wLBD/t+zKTYCF5c+BsEfvG3xyL39uAtqQva0Z7qV9wy5DJUbjEVkSjGBy+S/Ztl4aOxw==
X-Received: by 10.31.9.137 with SMTP id 131mr12844705vkj.117.1473690386755; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.70.77 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 07:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609121000130.61420@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> <CAEKtLiS8zo6s-b0UUbGYFQimKWzbTgvofPxZNOB5DEVX88imKA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1609121000130.61420@ary.local>
From: Casey Deccio <casey@deccio.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 10:26:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEKtLiReLP4W6Ybu-a4EjLbW3vq2gPp1a96F0TWrN++rFNHJ6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11440eb8030d33053c504846
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/i7EqAcXCyFhk5Ob-W7gI0A319Yo>
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 14:43:27 -0000

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:17 AM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>
> Nope.  In my proposal the number of lookups depends on the number of
> boundaries, not the number of components.


The moment you said "hostile sender", all bets were off.  They make as many
"boundaries" or any other component as they want.

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.
>>
>
> That'd be fine with me, but I wouldn't count on implementers paying more
> attention to this default than to the one for the current PSL.


Yes, that's exactly the point of "sane default": don't expect anyone to do
anything different.

Casey