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

Suzanne Woolf <> Tue, 08 March 2011 10:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D83B3A6842 for <>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 02:40:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bjDHy5rRTgEH for <>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 02:40:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F38E13A683B for <>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 02:40:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A14A5F983B; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:41:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10265) id 0C310216C22; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:41:05 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:41:05 +0000
From: Suzanne Woolf <>
To: Alex Bligh <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <7C043A33C72339E8A1FB6659@nimrod.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7C043A33C72339E8A1FB6659@nimrod.local>
User-Agent: Mutt/
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 10:40:18 -0000

On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 09:24:17AM +0000, Alex Bligh wrote:
> --On 7 March 2011 17:33:07 -0800 Doug Barton <> wrote:
> 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.

+1 on the point that we don't know. The problem statement draft is the
attempt to capture the landscape but if you've read the -00 it's
fairly clear we don't know *that* much.

> Suzanne Woolf is attempting to gather some matrix of requirements and
> balance them against disruption. Until such point (that might be never),
> all we've got is different proposed solutions with different functionality.
> What you're saying is that CLONE (apparently) allows the RHS of an NS
> record to be a variant too, which differentiates it from (e.g.) a
> CNAME/DNAME combination.

The -00 of the problem statement draft has been out for a couple of
weeks and we hope to ship a -01 before the Prague cutoff. I think Alex
and Doug have both sent comments, and more are welcome but we need
anything for the -01 in the next few days.

(I don't think I'll have time to read CLONE and add a description for
the -01, but if someone wants it in there alongside the attempts to
describe shadow zones and the assorted xNAMEs, send text.)

> Out of interest, /why/ is a variant being on the RHS of an NS or MX record
> useful? This is never visible to end users, and in the majority of use
> cases thus far brought up, the RHS of the NS or the MX record gets to be
> one user-illegible string beginning "xn--" rather than another illegible
> string beginning "xn--".

There have been a couple of comments from apps folks on this,
particularly Patrik Faltstrom, suggesting a possible use case in which
the alias is part of a resolution chain, i.e. underlying a URI. This
argument supposes that some user-illegible strings are nonetheless
useful for applications and application-facing services.