Re: [dnsext] we need help to make names the same, was draft-yao-dnsext-identical-resolution-02 comment

Andrew Sullivan <> Thu, 17 February 2011 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF8503A6D6C for <>; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:18:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.285
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.285 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.286, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nuP1CaEzcASd for <>; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:18:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4625C3A6D60 for <>; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:18:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88FFB1ECB420 for <>; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:19:05 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:19:03 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [dnsext] we need help to make names the same, was draft-yao-dnsext-identical-resolution-02 comment
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:18:36 -0000

No hat.

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:21:58AM +0200, Vaggelis Segredakis wrote:

> That is OK, as long as it provides a solution. However, what you say above
> does not imply necessarily the use of "wildcards", right? It is a different
> thing to use wildcards in the DNS protocol and completely different to ask
> for a group of FQDNs to be the "same".

Well, yes, except that we actually already have wildcards.  We don't
have these other mechanisms.

> However, if we do not bring our experience along with
> others in this discussion then we discuss solutions that are not applicable
> to the real problem. 

We fully agree here.

> somebody loses; the chair will have the task to announce it. However, up to
> that specific point of time please be impartial because I have the feeling
> you would prefer this discussion to end as soon as possible and that is not
> just.

I do want the discussion to end as soon as possible, but only in the
following sense: I want us to drive towards a conclusion and, if we're
going to do something, to do it.  We have been in the phase of talking
about maybe doing something for a year (or depending on how you count,
more), now, and we need to nail down exactly what the problems are,
figure out whether we have something useful we can do about them, and
then move ahead with doing those things if so.  We are supposed to be
a working group, after all, not a talk shop.


Andrew Sullivan
Shinkuro, Inc.