IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 13 March 2018 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 D205512751F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 07:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 bQIDjpLltgTS for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 07:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]) (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 AC0A7127419 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 07:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:38498) by ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1evlKZ-000Qw5-Jb (Exim 4.89_2) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:55:11 +0000
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:55:10 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Roland Bracewell Shoemaker <roland@letsencrypt.org>
cc: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <B7531E71-AC04-4D40-86B0-74F2DCA92446@letsencrypt.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1803131451330.27680@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <B7531E71-AC04-4D40-86B0-74F2DCA92446@letsencrypt.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1870870841-1948819385-1520952911=:27680"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Des5MSDeCVyWjCRnUTOiN88hW5Q>
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 14:55:15 -0000

Roland Bracewell Shoemaker <roland@letsencrypt.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

IMO it's fine from the protocol point of view to put TXT records in the
reverse DNS. (Remember to allow for following CNAMEs and other forms of
classless delegation.)

From the operational point of view, you're going to bump into a lot of
annoying road blocks: undelegated reverse DNS, provisioning systems that
only allow for PTR, etc.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
North Utsire, South Utsire: Variable 3 or 4, becoming southeasterly 5 or 6.
Moderate or rough. Fog patches. Good, occasionally very poor.

v2.19.0 | Report a Bug | By Email