Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 20 July 2017 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE97E131828 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=Dm4Du/Bg; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=lKUq9R7n
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VaIgE0sgI3j3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 700EE13146C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA83BD997 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:21:26 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1500560486; bh=EWKjXEecPj9qAmJiMAJHJ3Y4lE923UM6XIzuYlyE2w8=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Dm4Du/Bg5u9TRoX1Pse49qmLTNlhi6zgHT5C5YezjDQIVoQsIQAA9842MQpq1A8fq OdjRw48qHObluPsD4SFgN07CksMsqBWTC+zxJCBw7p285dBR1A5hnzrHr1vX7yT4FS jIoHq3p5n53YEabaorhJCsm0WDAb0MXJzCeaqQW4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pGzNqFshlNUB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:21:25 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:21:22 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1500560485; bh=EWKjXEecPj9qAmJiMAJHJ3Y4lE923UM6XIzuYlyE2w8=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=lKUq9R7n4GGsasrt38NeQe7PVcRvsZf6iQzkKUU6XE+0c2teKQY5anUd8s6PnSBAr IYy49QbgDPUwp1FgQH3uGvB7pOJoWHo4g/lSywHyg4j5rleibE1p+zdZ7M5kq9gBjl Rr5xT6TkdSALP0gacQkZf7+5XTiManljMUwftz6E=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170720142122.ncrkwi27ghdwj2sq@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1707190347390.10419@ns0.nohats.ca> <20170719215749.2241.qmail@ary.lan> <A05B583C828C614EBAD1DA920D92866BD081E78B@PODCWMBXEX501.ctl.intranet> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1707200928290.4118@dhcp-8e4c.meeting.ietf.org> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1707201432160.4413@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1707201432160.4413@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1bRCyCEF2q2s87YsL8Eccpldyko>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:21:59 -0000

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 02:34:48PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> This basically means that BULK is a master-only feature, which implies
> that there's no need for BULK to work across zone transfers, which implies
> the need to standardize it for interop is almost nonexistent.

I don't think that follows.

The DNS market is, like the mail market did some while ago, undergoing
a period of consolidation in which a fairly small number of people
have a very large number of dependent customers.  Unfortuantely,
whereas mail is asynchronous, DNS is effectively synchronous: if the
provder has a bad day and you can't get an answer the site is down.
This means that customers want to have multiple different vendors as
their master, and they want the secondaries of those sources to offer
as much as possible the same features, even when various DNS Tricks
are in use; and they want the downstreams to be using standard
protocols.  The more we can make interoperate to support that, the
better off those users are.

It is possible this is not a case that will work for that (see John
L's note), but I think the argument that master-only features don't
need to surive zone transfers is mistaken.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com