Re: [dnsext] Some thoughts on the updated aliasing draft

Paul Vixie <> Mon, 28 March 2011 06:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2101A3A6875 for <>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_WEOFFER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fxuJQ9wy+uYp for <>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb:230:48ff:fe5a:2f38]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2175D3A686C for <>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21DD2A106B for <>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:51:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from
From: Paul Vixie <>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "27 Mar 2011 22:31:14 GMT." <20110327223114.95877.qmail@joyce.lan>
References: <20110327223114.95877.qmail@joyce.lan>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:51:22 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Some thoughts on the updated aliasing draft
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: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:49:48 -0000

> Date: 27 Mar 2011 22:31:14 -0000
> From: "John Levine" <>
> ...
> If it's an absolute requirement that no software outside the DNS can
> change, then our answer is clear: manual name bundling, with manual
> configuration of applications, we're done, so long.  I don't hear much
> support for that.

let's get consensus around these as our only alternatives and if so
publish the finding and ask for instructions.  right now the fact that
all we can offer is second class names is private dnsext-only opinion
and needs to be upgraded to public knowledge so as to inform a decision.

> So what can we offer?  If it's something like CLONE or BNAME, we offer
> an upgrade path.  You're no worse off than you'd be with manual
> bundling and manual application configuration, and to the extent you
> upgrade your applications to know about the new DNS stuff, your
> configuration job gets easier.
> That's not as cool as the mythical magic hack.  Will people find it
> useful?  Having done my share of SMTP server hackery, I would.  If
> it's as important to handle variant names as people say it is, they'll
> upgrade.  If not, well, that's OK too.

i believe have unsligned (assymetric in fact) incentives here.  the folks
who would have to upgrade are those providing services (internet wide).
the folks who want this upgrade to happen are the name producers/sellers.
we did the same thing in EDNS0 and that's why i predict a very long tail.