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

Doug Barton <> Tue, 08 March 2011 01:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961773A685B for <>; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 17:03:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.565
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4SOxltBEoX6n for <>; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 17:03:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D47F3A69BB for <>; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 17:03:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 9361 invoked by uid 399); 8 Mar 2011 01:04:43 -0000
Received: from (HELO ( by with ESMTPAM; 8 Mar 2011 01:04:43 -0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:04:41 -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: John Levine <>
References: <20110307203733.84226.qmail@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20110307203733.84226.qmail@joyce.lan>
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 01:03:32 -0000

On 03/07/2011 12:37, John Levine wrote:
>> Title: Cloning Domain Name System (DNS) Labels for Fun and Profit
> Looks promising.

Thanks. :)

> In section 3, why does a CARNS have to make future queries to the
> preferred version?  Is it to improve cacheing, or is there something
> else about it that I'm missing?

Yes, and to reduce overall traffic, decrease processing power on the
authorities, etc.

> In 1.1, "truly equal" is really an application issue.

The point I was trying to make there was that I'm attempting to provide
a DNS solution to equivalence, not enter the debate on what "equal"
means. :) If you think I need to clarify that I can add some text, but
I'm hoping that the reference to the aliasing draft will help there.

> From a user's point of view, if a web browser changes the name in the
> displayed URL to the preferred one, the names aren't equal, and if it
> shows what you entered, they are, regardless of what bits the DNS
> might have returned,

Right, I think you're getting the idea of what I'm proposing. Users 
don't care about DNS. :)

> Ditto mail programs changing domains in mail addresses and so forth.
> With that in mind, I don't see the fact that the application can tell
> which name is preferred as a significant issue.

In most cases I think you're right. The idea behind CLONES is to give 
the application the ability to determine this in case it *is* 
significant for some reason.



	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.  :)