Re: [DNSOP] Question about usage of and

Frederico A C Neves <> Tue, 13 March 2018 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FFD612E04B for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0UAnwDvBcPj0 for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:2::4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FE54127419 for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 601732942B0; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:59:07 -0300 (BRT)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:59:07 -0300
From: Frederico A C Neves <>
To: Joe Abley <>
Cc: Roland Bracewell Shoemaker <>,
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Question about usage of and
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:59:17 -0000

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:16:56AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2018, at 11:58, Roland Bracewell Shoemaker <> wrote:
> > After a number of discussions I’m interested in returning to the original concept as it simplifies a number of use cases that this document is intended to support but am still not sure whether or not this would be widely considered ‘ok’ by DNS folks. 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?
> I think that if Tony can be, surely I can be
> A zone is a zone. ARPA is only special by convention, not by protocol.

Sure. Extra data, people in less stocked address networks have being
following BCP20 with the extra trick of putting delegations and
associated glue inside the same zone for ages.