IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 05 November 2015 06:32 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 AAA171B3A9D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 22:32:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
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 pcMAMKrC50kA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 22:32:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 09C621B3A9A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 22:32:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.32.60.52] (dhcp-28-182.meeting.ietf94.jp [133.93.28.182]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id tA56WjHd058824 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 23:32:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host dhcp-28-182.meeting.ietf94.jp [133.93.28.182] claimed to be [10.32.60.52]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 15:32:43 +0900
Message-ID: <6816952D-2A97-4ED0-B34B-3846F3CEE2A9@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20151105044728.GE4292@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <20151105044728.GE4292@mx2.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.2r5141)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/9Lz_07qjCp0c08rtdP44JozU3fo>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] My "toxic" remark at the mic today
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: <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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 06:32:49 -0000

On 5 Nov 2015, at 13:47, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> Is
> there a document that says not to put such a record into the root,
> however?

No, but there is an RFC from the IAB about what labels should not be 
into the root without further consideration: RFC 4690. That has been 
widely interpreted as "do not put X into the root", so it is similar to 
"do not put RRtype Y into the root".

> If not, why should DNSOP say anything about this?

Because people in the DNSOP WG may have data about the security or 
stability implications of DNAME in busy zones such as the root.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email