Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS root zone for sinking of special-use TLDs" ?
Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 18 October 2016 22:54 UTC
Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 A8F551298CC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 YKvlPSv9B2Q8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (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 B90B51298C8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34D49349504; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:54:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04E9516007B; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:54:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E790B16007C; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:54:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id v37ymPRtmefz; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:54:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FF6616007B; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:54:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F9A56F08DA; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:54:12 +1100 (EST)
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20161018175340.26608.qmail@ary.lan> <20161018211145.0DA0456EF21C@rock.dv.isc.org> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1610181740070.35115@ary.qy> <20161018220716.2A18956F019C@rock.dv.isc.org> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1610181836450.35412@ary.qy>
In-reply-to: Your message of "18 Oct 2016 18:38:47 -0400." <alpine.OSX.2.11.1610181836450.35412@ary.qy>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:54:12 +1100
Message-Id: <20161018225412.C0F9A56F08DA@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1zDKjdv7eYg91WIwpT7FZ_yir2U>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS root zone for sinking of special-use TLDs" ?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:54:19 -0000
In message <alpine.OSX.2.11.1610181836450.35412@ary.qy>, "John R Levine" writes: > >>> No. They slow the leaks. They do not STOP the leaks. They depend on > >>> leaks to work. > >> > >> With a 24 hour TTL on the root zone, it ain't going to leak very much. > > > > The practical TTL is 3 hours. > > How come? This is a real question, unbound appears to believe the 24 hour > TTL. Because that is what RFC 2308 says to do with negative answers. > > But dummy stub zones (which is what is being I'm requesting) require > > changes in the root zone to add a insecure delegation to not break > > other things. That requires IANA to be instructed to do so. > > Hm, I see your point. > > R's, > John -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
- [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS root zo… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… Bob Harold
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] [as112-ops] Future of "Using DNAME in… Aleksi Suhonen
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS roo… John R Levine