IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dbound] On (not) moving forward

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Sun, 27 March 2016 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.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 9F62C12D0A4 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=virtualized-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 5QZAfAkym9kG for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (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 B9BC3128874 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id l68so49895806wml.0 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=virtualized-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=VubCz8R/0LC42ncXbaVbkfdviUjjWsvVl54HVAhWokw=; b=AolQs5RzlvhuXggIcd7AGlwGe68Mh6mYej4x0fmLUiAQtnBYmrArcneEHSV8ERXYWm N6zN2D+WP+OlIVYzvrKw+nW088F08WAlzvL7okOcfUVYWWfmC+mHigxp3fdYSFrmVXKx cG8QJw9aSv7NuIMKukaVlkMFV/HkqUQ7u6zRjhGn3ESXyyDPgwj3oCaPGKlZYfdpAmgQ PwmODndODqdoIPtd+oc0o/kjGem8RFN4FxzU0plW2+aGHJzI6XZZ4Hk0aIhRJuBe8OKG Ert4PqiiaajiDDnSJEJEP558B68WHGF6Jh64tihPpg+PrVvuFiRXU+ohs+9G5ou7MF7T hYzA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=VubCz8R/0LC42ncXbaVbkfdviUjjWsvVl54HVAhWokw=; b=TfAaaOkJmRVnh4jaLaYQhekPfuXvGJy3jzdMLyh4QmY/w54LqW+7+JVlqYvvO+qe7v dt37qOdSQyDxU9wKZjZE42nnhrwzA75Vadk0PlC/EJY2ALlXJ0lxgXByPXDlAofLjSjr 8uXIvB3idFyD47GYyoSe01JJsJqBoFffN/lP3rSWpbHyhoiCO1vMm7Up2Ysu60IkJMvE IgDt2ONHy0GEuaJg1nil7cvLMrwBn3e1IkEI9XGSDuX/4vYbLgh9WwbKBO0fmUajYOCA vvm4ran8O6fGmMzMofwaWsWzcNsbtJiVsMhtTz1dHcR38ucp+q4juoEyxsKrHK9W8veg wFgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJK5AO5a2OIEVKsZKIpYwt66+eT0uHtGZcxhRQcKMpXu5vVMegP8nm5glQiyLaQdLQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.19.204 with SMTP id 195mr4181059wmt.1.1459045274172; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4300:6ed2:b9bf:51cc:bdba:df50? ([2601:647:4300:6ed2:b9bf:51cc:bdba:df50]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g9sm3776370wmf.15.2016.03.26.19.21.11 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2BD8E555-CE67-4760-ABA0-03099127E0E1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1603262028440.24319@ary.lan>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:21:08 -0700
Message-Id: <B78FD344-502C-4842-8A70-832D1F01E698@virtualized.org>
References: <20160326025652.14512.qmail@ary.lan> <2F22DF36-B8A9-4CE8-86F2-8592CC8283AB@viagenie.ca> <C0F8F796-7488-44B8-A9D8-CFD2D64EBB5A@virtualized.org> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1603262028440.24319@ary.lan>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/wBEBpDUhQCAs1CalcjAtl6Pkyx0>
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 02:21:17 -0000

John,

On Mar 26, 2016, at 5:34 PM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>> TXT records are way too overloaded. bad design. we shall stop using TXT records for extending the DNS.
>> 
>> Agreed that it's a bad design, but I thought the debacle with the SPF RR and the continued assertions that it is too hard to deploy new RRs guaranteed we'd be using TXT records in the future (at least for anything that is expected to scale).
> 
> SPF was an unusual situation since there was already a lot of running code using TXT records. But the people running that code had already gone through a lot of pain to get provisioning systems to handle TXT records, and they correctly saw that there was no benefit whatsoever to them to switch their working code to yet another RRTYPE.

I suspect all of these arguments will be reused.

> So long as the DNS crowd remains hostile to doing anything to make it easier to deploy new RR types, yeah, it'll keep being too hard.

I'm unaware of hostility. I am aware of interests, particularly in the (generally non-DNS) folks who write the web GUI front ends to DNS provisioning systems, to not write any more code than they have to. But perhaps you know different people than I.

Regards,
-drc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email