IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wreck problem draft-dashevskyi-dnsrr-antipatterns

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Mon, 19 April 2021 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 B087A3A38EA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=portfast.net
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 in9fYxyIMh7k for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.portfast.net (mail.portfast.net [IPv6:2a03:9800:20:1::2]) (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 7702A3A38E9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=portfast.net; s=dkim; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject: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=7Ae2ios4gr69SIOFDQmcK7fl8G6vs1hFHzX7wLg2QTk=; b=kiBmnimiMd+Dd8gAEn07Z8XmKC PC+4kpctWqTW0+M8FMuiOCGRTYJ63IHd4DEUTZVcnQ2cuhlQp40wCbjsq0512DJwsb4oPxUW6zkKO 7C2J1Lk/LfxKh/lYhbGn6Bs7OoJXYpiRaV5puWJzoka6kHKtbLRGqDksjA4VgKBC/yWI=;
Received: from [216.213.183.57] (port=49702 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by mail.portfast.net ([188.246.200.9]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1lYWX0-0004xH-O8 (Exim 4.89) (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:13:50 +0100
To: Lanlan Pan <abbypan@gmail.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <20210414090142.GA12570@nic.fr> <20210414091905.GB12570@nic.fr> <b341442d-cf12-1b7e-dfc0-a2b7afb77bd3@bellis.me.uk> <CANLjSvUqMEsjdBxO7Ka7fnBVAxgfrhHRrVyDHBw9hjEcO83+Bg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <e278ad45-9dfb-73cf-4b5f-5cc6930f31ce@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:13:50 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANLjSvUqMEsjdBxO7Ka7fnBVAxgfrhHRrVyDHBw9hjEcO83+Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/D2fixCKUrTv2VqruQ2FEUODwKiM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wreck problem draft-dashevskyi-dnsrr-antipatterns
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:14:00 -0000


On 19/04/2021 17:08, Lanlan Pan wrote:
> 
> 
> Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk <mailto:ray@bellis.me.uk>> 于2021年4月16日
> 周五 下午4:19写道：
> 
>     Many DNS proxies / ALGs don't inspect the packet contents at all, so a
>     stronger generic requirement was not feasible.
> 
> 
> depends on use case ?
> enterprise dns proxies may inspect, but home gateway proxies may not.

Yes, of course, although the latter were the primary target audience for
RFC 5625.

kind regards,

Ray

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email