Re: [dbound] The proposals before us

"John Levine" <> Sat, 03 September 2016 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDAB12B0F5 for <>; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 13:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DyBfQwe1R82i for <>; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 13:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0275012B0F3 for <>; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 13:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 60563 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2016 20:58:11 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 3 Sep 2016 20:58:11 -0000
Date: 3 Sep 2016 20:57:49 -0000
Message-ID: <20160903205749.4439.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dbound] The proposals before us
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS tree bounds <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 20:58:14 -0000

>* ODUP (
>* John Levine's proposal (
>* SOPA (

My draft expired, so I just uploaded a new -01 which strips out some
of the non-mail stuff but doesn't change the design otherwise.

I'm hardly unbiased, but here's my take on it:

ODUP: first party publication with TXT records, can work but has a lot
of stuff not useful for the mail application.  Number of queries
varies but seems usually to be the number of components in the name.

Mine: minimal design.  Number of queries is typically the number of
boundaries (not components) or that number plus 1, which in practice
seems unlikely to be more than 2.  The draft specifies a new RR with
first party publication but Variations section shows how TXT rather
than RR or third party rather than first party would work.

SOPA: can do all sorts of cool stuff, but the need to put RRs at each
name seems like a show stopper to me.