IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS root zone for sinking of special-use TLDs" ?

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Tue, 18 October 2016 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.org>
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 F34831298AC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 AdFtEVaM9coE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x233.google.com (mail-oi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B57921294B7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x233.google.com with SMTP id d132so10328422oib.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SjM8hdKrIOBqnCaxwGM2EwXW14wI9o3dTG8mYXxzfhQ=; b=Jy/cW1WgM5mZmgiKnd60T7G3x4tkZRlGNf0FodS8YHBpKAuy+NHNd52X+PcD1bBwDl 21EflnmSnYnJg7S1iqyTiRawQA/PTazgyGhg+hP9rPjsFwJvYuT0uLN/0aRUVFgpdqcY ZyipeRwI0lkWcXVkP932Dc3DlUhJ4aYLxFp2Q8tnJ/VgvQWQNzntIgNaQP6Rzdn0oCgO Bfo4M9isfC70MlPjusKcwf6O57QPfr8b5ylRtrABRRC8Bp4UM+vX5mkLmm7pr403e8gE T6liZk+Z8gWcNe+Ry9UE2GX+MA3YtO455H25w+lUEYdOsP9hrP8jh//dA2GLGulg4HhC +hYw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SjM8hdKrIOBqnCaxwGM2EwXW14wI9o3dTG8mYXxzfhQ=; b=kMPCJr4P9Pxr+G/3xs3YTuvyiu+BNpRVNwasCHc3sKbS0TMlKmdyptQ8XbEiM17so6 MIO+SA5rdwRwEqBkyX6Lm83a179cc57/xy5h2HVa181dQqqmIgXXuiKWQbFXveKGINGD EJYug1ory6i+7t2SdtMA5bZnweyZs6b8TYo/FULOWBK7KcuK385nBKltEQ2g01KrA3KG C0QhxTRtfMOFRH2UaWKjIQ/M+NQY8CcAUMMuXOGkNhRpUUBo8rhzOY4jTfjEFqpj51w1 lS1Crosv0jkHMVqzgUa9pq+qtpgcEaPzrCLofFO6T9uEyAmBM8nrDFGn4RRZkfMiFjih u9QA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RlNB47Ig1ut0yeXF1bcHmCb9Vs1YA6U6OoKfIA+KfKGpBhs2QpXcvM3noVQLZ0JRoB5DO3ZKRKvJ0f2xw==
X-Received: by 10.202.51.137 with SMTP id z131mr2394829oiz.184.1476830610137; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.221.8 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:80f0:c608:73eb:7fc6]
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1610181836450.35412@ary.qy>
References: <20161018175340.26608.qmail@ary.lan> <20161018211145.0DA0456EF21C@rock.dv.isc.org> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1610181740070.35115@ary.qy> <20161018220716.2A18956F019C@rock.dv.isc.org> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1610181836450.35412@ary.qy>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:43:29 +1000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn17uTXRya2vPruR==66jpDean5mJXtfu6Kdi09y5itqtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Cy45ojqS3aHU8si8VaG3UobNviY>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Future of "Using DNAME in the DNS root zone for sinking of special-use TLDs" ?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 18 Oct 2016 22:43:33 -0000

I would encourage you to write up some terminal state, either for
publication as an informational or in some other document series.
People find stuff, and if you link to it in the mail archives, it will
be a useful reminder of where we got to on the conversation.


On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:38 AM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>>> No.  They slow the leaks.  They do not STOP the leaks.  They depend on
>>>> leaks to work.
>>>
>>>
>>> With a 24 hour TTL on the root zone, it ain't going to leak very much.
>>
>>
>> The practical TTL is 3 hours.
>
>
> How come?  This is a real question, unbound appears to believe the 24 hour
> TTL.
>
>> But dummy stub zones (which is what is being I'm requesting) require
>> changes in the root zone to add a insecure delegation to not break
>> other things.  That requires IANA to be instructed to do so.
>
>
> Hm, I see your point.
>
> R's,
> John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email