Re: [dnsext] New Version Notification for draft-barton-clone-dns-labels-fun-profit-00

Doug Barton <> Tue, 08 March 2011 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA4E3A659A for <>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:01:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.559
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UewzPuss48iZ for <>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:01:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF8D3A6359 for <>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:01:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 31626 invoked by uid 399); 8 Mar 2011 21:02:58 -0000
Received: from (HELO ( by with ESMTPAM; 8 Mar 2011 21:02:58 -0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 13:02:55 -0800
From: Doug Barton <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110304 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alex Bligh <>
References: <> <> <> <7C043A33C72339E8A1FB6659@nimrod.local>
In-Reply-To: <7C043A33C72339E8A1FB6659@nimrod.local>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dnsext] New Version Notification for draft-barton-clone-dns-labels-fun-profit-00
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: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 21:01:50 -0000

On 03/08/2011 01:24, Alex Bligh wrote:
> --On 7 March 2011 17:33:07 -0800 Doug Barton <> wrote:
>> I think you're missing the whole point. :) Users want to be able to use
>> the variant labels (including things like being on the RHS of NS and MX
>> records) so the idea is to deal with them on a basis that is as equal as
>> possible.
> (I've read the draft but am thinking about it before commenting, so don't
> take this as a comment on the draft).


> I am not sure Nick is missing the point. We do not *know* that users want
> to use the variant labels on the RHS of NS and MX records (beyond the
> obvious truism that it would be nice to do everything). I am guessing that
> most users want to use the variant labels in URLs and email addresses, and
> that's it.

What I've heard from that community is that they want the most out of 
the variants that they can get. Perhaps Vaggelis can say more about 
that. However in the end I don't think we're going to get a definitive 
answer that is going to satisfy "us" as technologists. Users don't 
understand what they want to the level of technical detail that will 
satisfy us, so I think we need to try and provide as much flexibility as 

That said, I think that as DNSSEC becomes more widely deployed that 
using the variants for these purposes is going to be less attractive 
unless we can provide a solution. Obviously I have a strong feeling that 
the solution I'm offering is the right one, but I don't claim to be 
omniscient. :)



	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)