Re: [DNSOP] One Chair's comments on draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest

[Joe Abley <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 29, 2018, at 17:13, Florian Weimer <[e-mail]> wrote:

> * Tim Wicinski:
> 
>> For the ZONEMD RR Type, where in the registry do the authors think it
>> should go?  While some of that falls on the Expert Review process,  I think
>> the document authors should capture their rationale in the document.  If
>> the proposed RR Type is greater than 256 (which I think it does), it does
>> not appear to require a Standards Track document, just Expert Review.
> 
> There is some talk in the draft about blocking ZONEMD queries through
> recursive resolvers, which wiuld put it into the meta RR space, I
> think.
> 
> (But I disagree that there wouldn't be a loss of functionality—if the
> ZONEMD record contained the size of the zone, clients might want to
> query it, verify its signature, and only download the specified number
> of bytes.)

I agree with that use-case. 

I also don't see a compelling reason to complicate the DNS protocol by specifying that QTYPE=ZONEMD needs special handling. That's camel territory as I think Jinmei expresed concern over the other day; better just to document the RRType and let the DNS be the DNS.

I also agree with Tim's observation the other day that if this is just a new RRType, then expert review is all that is procedurally required and it'd be a generous extension of what is required to document the implementation and use of the new RRType in the RFC series.

Such a document would only need to be an informational and could plausibly be independent stream or AD-sponsored if it doesn't fit the charter or is otherwise unpalatable to the working group.


Joe