IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] on the more general problem of delegating to other namespaces in the DNS

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 17 June 2025 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1133617C1F for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MHLRjfhVTsaA for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.78]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68E973617C1A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTPS id 55HI5HvN011166 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:05:17 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:05:16 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([169.254.44.235]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([169.254.44.235]) with mapi id 15.02.1544.011; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:05:16 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@strandkip.nl>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [Ext] on the more general problem of delegating to other namespaces in the DNS
Thread-Index: AQHb37D8Znko/cRhp0OuOpPOVMaLoLQIGrgA
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:05:16 +0000
Message-ID: <E30999C0-9ECA-49ED-A109-B42C0C9DCADA@icann.org>
References: <761F6D32-25FE-4742-9682-819A338C8EC9@strandkip.nl> <96D1EC9A-DC37-4950-B391-E9C23B8C4686@icann.org> <6215983B-D210-4FB1-B64C-28691B421ACC@strandkip.nl>
In-Reply-To: <6215983B-D210-4FB1-B64C-28691B421ACC@strandkip.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <E5FBD2C1558CC04BB7D42E8BD06DC0A8@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1099,Hydra:6.0.736,FMLib:17.12.80.40 definitions=2025-06-17_08,2025-06-13_01,2025-03-28_01
Message-ID-Hash: DSL2YW2GQYM56FU262RU46AFJDG4HEEK
X-Message-ID-Hash: DSL2YW2GQYM56FU262RU46AFJDG4HEEK
X-MailFrom: paul.hoffman@icann.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: [Ext] on the more general problem of delegating to other namespaces in the DNS
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-2zrpZQ1YXNe7QFSh44r6EezIIo>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

On Jun 17, 2025, at 10:54, Joe Abley <jabley@strandkip.nl> wrote:
> Using "." to mean "not available" has some history and it feels nice not to deviate;

I would generally agree, but in this case noname (".") has a particular meaning in the DNS that it doesn't in, for example MX records. Thus my concern.

> also I'm not sure what other name we could use that would not cause different headaches.

Any real name would cause other problems, definitely. It's a balancing act, which is why I hope that y'all have done some measurements with existing resolvers to (help) assure that there are no obvious problems.

> But I agree choosing a different special target just for this would conceptually be some kind of solution if it turns out there is a problem.

Good, because I really like the use case for the draft and the simplicity of the proposed solution.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status