Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Mon, 18 January 2016 09:55 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E662C1B338E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 01:55:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 JMhmqOBZ0M7g for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 01:55:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0E281B338A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 01:55:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:33239) by ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1aL6X0-0002ZL-mw (Exim 4.86_36-e07b163) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:55:26 +0000
Received: from fanf2 by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local id 1aL6X0-0006ta-4j (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:55:26 +0000
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:55:26 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Andreas Gustafsson <gson@araneus.fi>
In-Reply-To: <22171.35498.720284.788325@guava.gson.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1601180947500.21715@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <566E329D.7010007@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqeR5nVGOnLWQ3CzWKR86===VoXWNsqyas3yJEG5zX2n=Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1601131007410.8365@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAJE_bqc53vizG54TS9yRCfP62EdnzyP=5piDRVKixAWB+_C+kw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1601141306000.8365@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <22171.35498.720284.788325@guava.gson.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1w4VSBTimT7P0wz9ZtISFNhqaIE>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:55:33 -0000

Andreas Gustafsson <gson@araneus.fi> wrote:
>
> Here's my opinion:

Thanks :-)

> Section 9 of the draft should not refer to the requirements as
> "requirements for UPDATE clients", but something like "requirements for
> entities that update endpoint records in the reverse tree".  I would
> consider these entities to be on a higher layer of the protocol stack
> than the UPDATE protocol itself.  They may happen to use UPDATE as the
> lower-layer mechanism to effect the changes, but that does not make this
> a change to the UPDATE protocol, an update to RFC2136, or a requirement
> on UPDATE clients in general.

Hmm, I am reluctant to introduce new layering. Is there a precedent for
the distinction you are making?

> I would even say that the requirement to follow CNAME and DNAME
> redirections should apply equally when the updates are not performed
> using the RFC2136 UPDATE protocol at all, but using some other
> mechanism.

What deployed examples do you have in mind? Who here knows how Active
Directory interacts with DNS aliases?

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Shannon: Northwest 6 to gale 8 decreasing 4 or 5, becoming variable 3 later.
Very rough at first in southeast, otherwise moderate or rough. Showers.
Moderate or good.