[DNSOP] missing use case and problem statement for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr

[Jim Reid <[e-mail]>]

> On 20 Jul 2017, at 16:25, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> And DNSSEC is not the only case where we introduced RRtypes where you
> have to check your slaves to be sure they support it. There was also
> DNAME.
> 
> That's why I don't share the fears about BULK

BULK would be an RRtype which *by design* prevents another part of the DNS from working. That’s just wrong. Behaviour like that might be acceptable for a non-trivial protocol change like a new header bit or EDNS option (say). But a new RRtype? Really?

BTW, if there are cases where an ISP’s customers care about reverse DNS for their IPv6 addresses, what’s stopping those customer devices using dynamic update to provision their names or have the DHCP server do that for them? Why can’t the ISP's provisioning systems and tools spit out PTR records for the IP addresses which need this secret sauce?

It’s still not clear to me what problem is actually being fixed by BULK and why no other provisioning mechanism is applicable.

If the WG is to adopt this draft, I think there first has to be a clear problem statement backed by use cases. [Prettier log files doesn’t do it for me. YMMV.] That way, the WG will be able to decide how well the final version of the document addresses these requirement if/when it gets to WGLC.

Apologies for introducing a meaningful and relevant Subject: header.