[DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive?
Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-7@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 04 August 2026 14:53 UTC
Return-Path: <pch-b55F8B228@u-1.phicoh.com>
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 21ABC1236DCAB for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2026 07:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1785855200; bh=xZBQ1P+2IRxCyRD4TQB1CwzciZZEjpqd0gJGwIdndb8=; h=To:Cc:Subject:From:References:In-reply-to:Date; b=u6RCmv43yMT5mO7zt9YllD72cAEqkS4hh7Jg/ZAJyPO/63ylDP+pHvSieC8oV/d19 +3+9W+fp9ILPPKvm1T9A22f/MiXRk7bvuBFHmqqllwyce6cmlZOCLP6/mEg7rPySJF /bJKWJAtmi7xFyN3qz0jza9Ed0BbwG6WeDDA2Fnw=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 Mas9obps2kks for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2026 07:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2a10:3781:2413:1:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 261871236DC9F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2026 07:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #158) id m1wrGW5-0000O0C; Tue, 4 Aug 2026 16:53:17 +0200
Message-Id: <m1wrGW5-0000O0C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-7@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b55F8B228@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <m1wozxZ-0000OVC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <538EEAAD-9492-41A2-B412-13BC026F0719@dnss.ec> <m1wp2tq-0000O0C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <7EE41823-C911-486E-A49B-2D043DE02046@dnss.ec> <m1wp5jC-0000NrC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <ECEF8125-D62A-4109-B8B0-205A7C3200F5@dnss.ec> <m1wquvB-0000NwC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <1C0A23F3-92CF-46F7-8DFE-9F804A462D9E@dnss.ec> <m1wrETN-0000NzC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <4A0EC5E2-9C0A-4AE7-8959-D4FE9EC4503E@dnss.ec>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 4 Aug 2026 14:18:37 +0100 ." <4A0EC5E2-9C0A-4AE7-8959-D4FE9EC4503E@dnss.ec>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2026 16:53:16 +0200
Message-ID-Hash: HACSM2JGIRICTRAOUUREMVRP2PIO2ARG
X-Message-ID-Hash: HACSM2JGIRICTRAOUUREMVRP2PIO2ARG
X-MailFrom: pch-b55F8B228@u-1.phicoh.com
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: Roy Arends <roy@dnss.ec>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive?
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0oJ-TdvQeYMRQrJZYf4lJR_kxTg>
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>
> Both primary and secondary servers do not need to know anything > about Delegation Types, other than to serve those when DE=1. Zone > Transfers are unaffected. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that your current solution always includes the NS RRset in a delegation reply (if it exists). With a split range, the NS RRset would be left out if any delegation types are present. So split range idea leads to smaller replies for the DELEG use-case. For example, in your proposal the following would be part of a delegation to .com in addition to any DELEG records. If we add DS and RRSIG records then current delegation is already 1163 octets. I wonder what effect that will have on glue. For .com, glue is in theory optional. .net has the same delegation where glue is not optional. $ dig @a.root-servers.net com. a ; <<>> DiG 9.18.39-0ubuntu0.24.04.5-Ubuntu <<>> @a.root-servers.net com. a ; (2 servers found) ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 5961 ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: 27 ;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;com. IN A ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: com. 172800 IN NS l.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS j.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS h.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS d.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS b.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS f.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS k.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS m.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS i.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS g.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS a.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS c.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS e.gtld-servers.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: l.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.41.162.30 l.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:500:d937::30 j.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.48.79.30 j.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:502:7094::30 h.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.54.112.30 h.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:502:8cc::30 d.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.31.80.30 d.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:500:856e::30 b.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.33.14.30 b.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:503:231d::2:30 f.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.35.51.30 f.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:503:d414::30 k.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.52.178.30 k.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:503:d2d::30 m.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.55.83.30 m.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:501:b1f9::30 i.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.43.172.30 i.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:503:39c1::30 g.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.42.93.30 g.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:503:eea3::30 a.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.5.6.30 a.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:503:a83e::2:30 c.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.26.92.30 c.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:503:83eb::30 e.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN A 192.12.94.30 e.gtld-servers.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:502:1ca1::30 ;; Query time: 3 msec ;; SERVER: 2001:503:ba3e::2:30#53(a.root-servers.net) (UDP) ;; WHEN: Tue Aug 04 16:47:06 CEST 2026 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 828
- [DNSOP] Is DELEXT too restrictive? Roy Arends
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Pieter Lexis
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Michael Richardson
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? John Levine
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Roy Arends
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? John R Levine
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Petr Špaček
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Peter Thomassen
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Roy Arends
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Roy Arends
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Roy Arends
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Roy Arends
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Roy Arends
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Roy Arends
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? John Levine
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? John Levine
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Roy Arends
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Roy Arends
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? John R Levine
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Philip Homburg
- [DNSOP] Re: Is DELEXT too restrictive? Petr Špaček