Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 19 July 2017 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 F091D131C08 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 rFzDYWyKgveF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 9A490131BFE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3xC8YG47DWz4H; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:58:42 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1500451122; bh=a+qfUwU8DIiD0n435vLKmGRT0ePjGo+05+1qIZQmn1k=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=MWSlI1vrEGgMS1ufhlu4NnNJ9PAQ15iu1QlPiyrK8EJfWoHG6zGRMmCRyCPHqk1gk 2eoy4XPc3t1bYw6k2wPr4dmqr42d0kuYZfyCwhAHn8Lxsu9sKxOOQVwUqTg03/Ts4P TfQ8+rwJ+ctq5ctjbv45+/5uEkYc8FTyrAl8WLIA=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NpVxMg_yIMfR; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:58:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ns0.nohats.ca (ns0.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::102]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:58:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by ns0.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 500) id B4EC74025B; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 03:58:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns0.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B200A3F46B; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 03:58:39 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 03:58:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn3xHZ6bzSSLoLt0FQzBrunqFPa-PFG6bAjLpfdEsD_iGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1707190347390.10419@ns0.nohats.ca>
References: <150040947342.11401.6673996996138598307.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKr6gn3xHZ6bzSSLoLt0FQzBrunqFPa-PFG6bAjLpfdEsD_iGQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/FXPKBG02I0xJ-wQIPQskZq0vb5M>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"
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: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:58:47 -0000

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, George Michaelson wrote:

> Read, support. This is a useful addition to document how to do something.
>
> Now, the 'outer' question of the value of reverse-DNS label binding,
> thats a different conversation. I can well imagine a bunch of
> bikeshed-painting, but lets focus on this as a technique for
> specifying programmatic population of a zone? I like it.

I kind of disagree.

We are adding something to DNS that's not just a new RRTYPE. It requires
code changes and has a deployment and long tail. If the only result is
that anti-spammers are no longer checking reverse PTR records, we end
up with a feature in DNS that has no use, and the anti-spammers using
another method to determine "inferior" IP addresses. DNS will be the
only party left with some legacy complication.

I would feel much better if there would be some real use csases to
justify adding special code to DNS that will instantly become obsolete.

Paul