Re: [DNSOP] draft-mglt-dnsop-search-list-processing-00.txt

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 07 May 2014 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 EDC931A02A9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 05:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_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 0zKFeDzdq8WX for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 05:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27AA11A0227 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2014 05:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154DF2383E1; Wed, 7 May 2014 12:32:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E924C160067; Wed, 7 May 2014 12:36:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8E9D160066; Wed, 7 May 2014 12:36:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C242154F988; Wed, 7 May 2014 22:32:46 +1000 (EST)
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <CADZyTkn2Wau99zfQR+jjwHVr4Jnq3Eo=Ht+OEScbvKBLc=7e2w@mail.gmail.com> <20140507103639.GA28674@nic.fr>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 07 May 2014 12:36:40 +0200." <20140507103639.GA28674@nic.fr>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 22:32:46 +1000
Message-Id: <20140507123246.5C242154F988@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7_9bxBGDlky20URtSO4S6MUvI-4
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-mglt-dnsop-search-list-processing-00.txt
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 07 May 2014 12:33:08 -0000

In message <20140507103639.GA28674@nic.fr>, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 09:41:10PM +0200,
>  Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com> wrote 
>  a message of 63 lines which said:
> 
> > Please find draft-mglt-dnsop-search-list-processing-00.txt [1] 
> 
> > a single label that is 63 characters or less, starts with a letter,
> > ends with a letter or digit, and has as interior characters only
> > letters, digits, and hyphen as defined by [RFC1035].
> 
> Why this restriction, which is *not* in RFC 1035. "_tcp" is not a
> single label?
> 
> > In addition, fall backs resolution between these two categories will
> > happen and MUST be address by administrator before any new gTLD.
> 
> It seems to be a policy decision and not suitable for a RFC.
> 
> > For Unqualified Domain Names, the resolver MUST proceed to the
> > resolution using search list.  If the resolution fails, returning a
> > NXDOMAIN, no attempt SHOULD be done to resolve it as an Qualified
> > Domain Name.
> 
> The second sentence is a protocol change and should not be done
> lightly. Frankly, I see no reason to forbid single-label domain names
> to work. (Whatever ICANN may say.)

It's not forbidding single label domain names.  It's forbidding
searches crossing administrative boundaries.  Has anything really
changed since RFC 1535 was published to make that *safe*?

Have 'COM' or '.' in the search list was bad when RFC 1535 was
published.  Nothing has made having either of them in a search list
any better since.  With the opening up of '.' to more players has
made it worse.

> >   This section provides a small command line that tests which TLD has
> >   an A or a AAAA RRset.
> 
> May be a mention of RFC 7085 here? It has a similar script and similar
> results.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org