IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-01.txt

cpolish@surewest.net Fri, 19 February 2021 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <cpolish@surewest.net>
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 1C6CF3A0855 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 13:21:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=surewest.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 ZjBEX4a_Glkp for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 13:21:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fmlca.mycci.net (fmlca.mycci.net [66.60.128.52]) (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 D3ED13A0858 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 13:21:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ca01-cl01-vpl-nges-mailq-002.ipnms.net ([10.40.0.236]) by fmlca.mycci.net with ESMTP id 11JLLKOe026012-11JLLKOf026012; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 13:21:20 -0800
Received: from vinny.peecee3.com (gw.ca-rsvl-lb1-lb2-v27.ipnms.net [10.40.253.1]) (Authenticated sender: cpolish@surewest.net) by ca01-cl01-vpl-nges-mailq-002.ipnms.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 82C84DC0002; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 13:21:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 13:21:17 -0800
From: cpolish@surewest.net
To: Havard Eidnes <he=40uninett.no@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: willem@nlnetlabs.nl, dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <YDArzan+A2Ikkn0U@vinny.peecee3.com>
References: <160712121645.11485.9271273951179383921@ietfa.amsl.com> <eb84cf94-e3f2-fef0-8bb0-8bab093177db@nlnetlabs.nl> <20210219.184501.817904560961969387.he@uninett.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <20210219.184501.817904560961969387.he@uninett.no>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; d=surewest.net; s=fmlca; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type; bh=5DooMWqNKXIaA90DXcFHcFXyePG+PG3VkU9P/IvksTY=; b=NFMYRLaWCnvIRJn+ylPh5CH5uAr7HPXJKmKhqQrv+at9ytasOIkyeQjk2G9/ECuz900K9Z3ZvKs6 29IiwV2IMhgECbkikoI/FGTSDLrQEXsScos27J1y4DcoPL7/5C6nfIq3mj/EsIMotAvmzCqP6OGD QMMQZ0rgIwaMGd20Ii0k2MJ6HtPFL1Ml78vzaZvxPVivBOdNmaB1WG4kcY8FKNJEQoMQH+xz4v12 DMyKriveeVDmSauwlssLsdbEqiPMdgxd4ePm5lwUp+eeXpG+4np+cLJr8A0L3pJjL/WQpVbdGsT+ c2iOu9p1c4tr8RRg3328wvDGLyAZ54kBPhVIHA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/5s38O9arhxFbF4A5v7hxEVlBrFk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-01.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: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 21:21:23 -0000

On 2021-02-19 18:45, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> However, "burning" a new RR just for this purpose seems to me to
> not be necessary, so I favour the scheme in 5.6 using a TXT
> record instead.

My reading of RFC 5507 "Design Choices When Expanding the DNS"
§6 ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5507#section-6 ):

      ... of all the alternate solutions, the "obvious" approach of using
      TXT Resource Records for arbitrary names is almost certainly the
      worst ...

seems to favor "burning" a new RR "just for this purpose".
While RFC 5507 is informational, it does consider the general
problem (new RR vs. TXT) in some detail.

-- 
Charles Polisher

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email