Re: [DNSOP] dnames, was My "toxic" remark at the mic today

["Joe Abley" <[e-mail]>]

On 6 Nov 2015, at 2:17, John R Levine wrote:

>>> I'm not sure how toxic it is, but I agree that we are unlikely to 
>>> have
>>> anything useful to say on the topic.
>>
>> Speaking personally, I do not see DNAME toxic, but the question has 
>> almost always been:
>
> To clarify, it's us offering advice on what goes into the root zone 
> that's toxic, not dname specifically.

I get the distinction.

To the tangential point of whether it's reasonable or practical to have 
DNAME in the root zone (side-stepping the issue you were talking about, 
about who should have opinions about that and who should make decisions) 
there was some work commissioned by ICANN a number of years ago and 
carried out by João Damas to evaluate the behaviour of many different 
code bases to a root zone that contained DNAME. The context of that work 
was the potential solution to use DNAME in the root zone to provision 
variant IDN TLDs (see ICANN board resolution 10 adopted on 12 March 
2010), but the report was arguably general enough to be instructive in 
this different context.

   
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-03-12-en#10
   https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2011-05-24-en

Additionally, there was an experiment carried out to quantify the 
availability of DNAME support in the real world for AS112 by George 
Michaelson and Geoff Huston. The results are documented in an appendix 
of RFC 7535.


Joe