Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-only-00.txt

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 06 May 2020 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 1EBF33A0B0B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2020 13:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=tjE9/Flt; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=wQ+s6mLH
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 Xkb_LJNNWMBo for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2020 13:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 962A03A0DFE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 May 2020 13:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 77574 invoked from network); 6 May 2020 20:19:47 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=12f03.5eb31be3.k2005; bh=woWqjzLDu/fM2tGpB+Jrx6xw+7aYYh85oXyVme3nUS4=; b=tjE9/FltR5V+aJemAnddCSUTYc+3yjM/NgZVOQdwYcCyatH0FvgHJqxU9VYw11JQ58aDtPZSkyETeyHwri9G0ndSuyzyce/RzBlI3A2JD89eGJUmfhG0xpijevW2jdBwyM/qZQo7B+sVBPIrozZhDB1Xxlptd+xu/QLoZEe+A3wgH+K9taXb/8D+a1/oGmOsNTANmeKUcYhq+iT+zrsgnr8ReEwsZv22QoKgXDMQB62qBBbTWh6wDkOom0s7Tmgh
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=12f03.5eb31be3.k2005; bh=woWqjzLDu/fM2tGpB+Jrx6xw+7aYYh85oXyVme3nUS4=; b=wQ+s6mLH1d2BSD8Ggvc6bI6qqNrqcEVMUM/n3vdAzeI48VYgqwN+qNd1d+rnjO4ZgVBICo+Vh0Uoc3KCpk/iF9gUPQueDCTlH/G5DwslFUX6thPmyb8FeBcFLgV94bO2ivsF3CY1QiVszjnqs3A4uD4l1AK6Hfbqf9RjcAwYcny6koSkwWNwJqES3twaJ97ELAc/DPy3PhEvPsbTRJjzNNqXMwuMwO4Vny5aTOlhAIek5wuDQ5jaseIaTEb/6m3z
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 06 May 2020 20:19:47 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0F48918D9BA0; Wed, 6 May 2020 16:19:46 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 6 May 2020 16:19:46 -0400
Message-Id: <20200506201947.0F48918D9BA0@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: paul@nohats.ca
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.2005061346510.20509@bofh.nohats.ca>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4s3eZ0gYjaXk9Mizh4FWysRqEvM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-only-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: Wed, 06 May 2020 20:20:37 -0000

In article <alpine.LRH.2.21.2005061346510.20509@bofh.nohats.ca> you write:
>> Requiring such records to become delegations may be impossible if the
>> existing names (that might now become apex records) require a CNAME.
>
>Why would this _require_ to be a CNAME ?

Administrative require, not technical.  This seems pretty
hypothetical, since I don't think I've ever seen a CNAME in a TLD
zone.

>> Another non-delegation record also commonly found in TLDs is
>> _nicname._tcp.<tld> SRV.
>
>_underscore labels are excempted in the draft already,  because
> [ they're not host names ]

Right, but that still doesn't deal with stuff like monitor-nominet.horse.

How about instead saying the zone has only names one level below the
zone cut, other than _underscore ones.  That prevents shadowed
delegations just as well and matches actual zone files a lot better.