Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-edns-tags-00.txt

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Tue, 05 March 2019 08:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 4C448130E2B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 00:13:16 -0800 (PST)
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=portfast.net
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 jRVKvGWgJ_Rw for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 00:13:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.portfast.net (mail.portfast.net [IPv6:2a03:9800:20:1::2]) (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 DD76112958B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 00:13:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=portfast.net; s=dkim; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=g/+dX+rLpK1NbddngaY94z23EihziG/Jw4h2Ux+90hM=; b=OrlrJUKYo6J6XqSFMgCgk5X6gL DRGwhKWjO06CTljH8UetJ5tdE7kl4epddeaIFKtY4tQNJ1hgo4n78n0hA9U29rfUeWSoto4l4+sDz m20II9/OCNY0P7AX6KVpNje9eufmtnGR2s5Q/WMZVHLkcHyZGcFLsDCVXvPOUXX4M1/8=;
Received: from 88-212-170-147.customer.gigaclear.net ([88.212.170.147]:64628 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by mail.portfast.net ([188.246.200.9]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1h15CL-0000N1-0L (Exim 4.89) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Tue, 05 Mar 2019 08:13:13 +0000
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <155171606493.5281.3957934874516100450.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5c3cc3f9-2225-9077-fb9e-0fb940bd1c1b@isc.org> <yblef7mp7io.fsf@wu.hardakers.net>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <a472a1ce-5bcb-35ce-8eb5-a4d3cccdf6f4@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 08:13:12 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <yblef7mp7io.fsf@wu.hardakers.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/3qLSXe53TC2BLY7JeDVu-k-VmFA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-edns-tags-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 05 Mar 2019 08:13:16 -0000


On 04/03/2019 23:03, Wes Hardaker wrote:

> Hmmm..  very interesting idea, but I'm having a hard time seeing how
> this will be used in the real world in a scalable and interoperable
> way.

The use cases on the open internet are probably less interesting than 
those were client and server have a more tightly coupled relationship.

> The problem with a generic mechanism like this for DNS is that the
> number of clients per server are potentially gigantic.  And there is
> often not a documented relationship or even a known contact mechanism to
> signal changes taking place.  This all makes communication of agreed
> upon semantics of bits not exactly impossible, but likely between
> difficult to extremely difficult.  And misconfiguration could be
> potentially be dangerous, depending on the meaning of the bits.  Imagine
> if the new bit for some flipped software suddenly switched to "I trust
> MD5, go ahead and believe MD5 DS records".

I suggest that I add a sentence or two about applicability, constraining 
it to those where the client has tight coupling (be that topologically 
or contractually) to a particular set of servers.

Ray