Re: [dd] DBOUND scope
Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> Wed, 20 March 2024 05:50 UTC
Return-Path: <tale@dd.org>
X-Original-To: dd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75278C14F726 for <dd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Om6qF9Gx6NDZ for <dd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fluff.twonth.com (fluff.twonth.com [45.79.143.238]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B021CC14F6B3 for <dd@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gro.dd.org (c-76-23-204-191.hsd1.vt.comcast.net [76.23.204.191]) by fluff.twonth.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA3741FCCB for <dd@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 05:50:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by gro.dd.org (Postfix, from userid 102) id 6FCC61898A1; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 01:50:50 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <26106.31034.433859.244113@gro.dd.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 01:50:50 -0400
From: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
To: dd@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20240320002534.5DB2D85B4E2B@ary.qy>
References: <CAKr6gn0e5f2tkhfq2yST88FHE9j77Hor7pMDkp_9rngbkHsdUg@mail.gmail.com> <20240320002534.5DB2D85B4E2B@ary.qy>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dd/PycqPH-kR2JIOBHENOo03515Vnw>
Subject: Re: [dd] DBOUND scope
X-BeenThere: dd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Delegation <dd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dd>, <mailto:dd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dd/>
List-Post: <mailto:dd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dd>, <mailto:dd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 05:50:53 -0000
John Levine writes: > How about we agree that we sort of keep DBOUND in mind but we don't > otherwise plan to do anything about it? I'm agreed. I favor delegation solutions that *might seemingly* lead to the possibility of addressing it in the future without deeply diving into whether dbound is usefully addressable entirely within the domain resolution process. It's a rathole to go there now when the delegation mechanism itself is work enough.
- [dd] DBOUND scope Ben Schwartz
- Re: [dd] DBOUND scope Patrick Mevzek
- Re: [dd] DBOUND scope John Levine
- Re: [dd] DBOUND scope Ben Schwartz
- Re: [dd] DBOUND scope Peter Thomassen
- Re: [dd] DBOUND scope George Michaelson
- Re: [dd] DBOUND scope John Levine
- Re: [dd] DBOUND scope George Michaelson
- Re: [dd] DBOUND scope Jim Reid
- Re: [dd] DBOUND scope Dave Lawrence