Re: [DNSOP] Question about usage of ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa

Joe Abley <jabley@90.212.199.in-addr.arpa> Tue, 13 March 2018 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@90.212.199.in-addr.arpa>
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 F27401252BA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RDNS_NONE=0.793, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (OpenSSL error: data too large for key size)" header.d=automagic.org
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 rZiA5IhVu2Ic for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hopcount.ca (unknown [IPv6:2001:4900:1:392::156]) (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 0EBA1124B0A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=simple/simple; d=automagic.org ; s=hopcount; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date: In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=sSfRaxqBqpcs/k+LqwsnPrOJjN/+GriIgShuzz40aQU=; b=ZITDWvxKTFu537Yp4yI3s3hFpp cTH/AX2Dr1fKv2dSC1zcQqqy6MA/t4lXYppWUxZWGBJDcNz25TMIoL2j6p2S27FlD06ZT1NBPnwgS 9WM0BIwSIxq+dRsdJqJMnhYc+3eBJP9ci7B1ERCmFGTyXBTwfZhUjM6lPvqb2d9QWVQSHWKdyUNYB yt/jMSq6WPnIYmSuZ/8RE9lMrx6vpYGVWPcG+0TTWLnmv58QrBWYrmS/IWx8Bt6x6r3jB19aBwxUj dMJ3wkbAj11lbMNWqreQ0K8zN1iVHNIE9AkqDEMMTUPvFmGKHvQX0rFCVL5KeezWNbw9oSqWyObXG WIhjYVGA==;
Received: from [199.91.196.11] (helo=[10.196.200.90]) by mail.hopcount.ca with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <jabley@90.212.199.in-addr.arpa>) id 1evlfd-0009Fj-Pk; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:16:58 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Joe Abley <jabley@90.212.199.in-addr.arpa>
In-Reply-To: <B7531E71-AC04-4D40-86B0-74F2DCA92446@letsencrypt.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:16:56 -0400
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <62E857A4-6184-4F1A-A6E2-16AC5C16F574@90.212.199.in-addr.arpa>
References: <B7531E71-AC04-4D40-86B0-74F2DCA92446@letsencrypt.org>
To: Roland Bracewell Shoemaker <roland@letsencrypt.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 199.91.196.11
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jabley@90.212.199.in-addr.arpa
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.hopcount.ca); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/8wgwdFTUs7Sm_gPiTMiwHuT3FJk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Question about usage of ip6.arpa and in-addr.arpa
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:17:30 -0000

On 12 Mar 2018, at 11:58, Roland Bracewell Shoemaker <roland@letsencrypt.org> wrote:

> After a number of discussions I’m interested in returning to the original concept as it simplifies a number of use cases that this document is intended to support but am still not sure whether or not this would be widely considered ‘ok’ by DNS folks. Obviously it’s entirely possible to do this as these child zones are delegated to users and they _can_ put whatever they want in them. Does this WG have strong opinions on whether we should/shouldn’t do this for technical reasons or we just being a bit too strict in our reading of 3172?

I think that if Tony can be dot@dotat.at, surely I can be jabley@90.212.199.in-addr.arpa.

A zone is a zone. ARPA is only special by convention, not by protocol.


Joe