Re: [DNSOP] draft idea : rfc_bcp_no-mail-loss-during-ns-changes.txt
vivil@laposte.net Thu, 09 May 2019 10:01 UTC
Return-Path: <willemijns.sebastien@laposte.net>
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 44C54120092 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 03:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=laposte.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 mSsGcndzfdNQ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 03:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.laposte.net (smtpoutz2.laposte.net [194.117.213.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 918FB120041 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 03:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.laposte.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lpn-prd-vrout005 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2476EA6536D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 12:01:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp.laposte.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lpn-prd-vrout005 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F59A65343 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 12:01:20 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=laposte.net; s=mail0; t=1557396080; bh=V9MkOT27MdRZwBZgZWKMr8fgM+a47W3vqsRdUHMpSl4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject; b=O5l/FiMUnL0Ur8skGMWKphwuWLZOG3648vz3ibyGjwogvuhIDFggGhtecBIrkfA5G m5PJPBIkQw3YPV56ij09a4zzeBdcRYrKO4Zca/eqHwuhqggQw0jMeWF6AOCdXveviP 11Q9q/hPvvPmwx2IN/F6wE8iSyRNMbHOPhnNst0yZ2MBa56Z338hSj2avq2e8VJiJd QLlATD3Yon8bsDdHOZEckee4+IkO+KfhphjqNY3y79mROioV8v6HuNs6uhOwBSw2Kh mbuzMGsUUg7qC7Hit+MbsXvXNOLjacozM3IrtzYR1Pg3dkoUMsyg5SxO4qYdGH0MRk L5OfO0ctQtPRg==
Received: from lpn-prd-mstr021.laposte (lpn-prd-mstr021 [10.128.59.22]) by lpn-prd-vrout005 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5779EA65558 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 11:56:36 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 11:56:36 +0200
From: vivil@laposte.net
Reply-To: vivil@laposte.net
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1854833599.5162837.1557395796237.JavaMail.zimbra@laposte.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190509024425.4F218201389E26@ary.qy>
References: <20190509024425.4F218201389E26@ary.qy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_5162836_164737116.1557395796236"
X-Originating-IP: [78.248.38.178]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.6_GA_5922 (ZimbraWebClient - FF66 (Linux)/La Poste)
Thread-Topic: draft idea : rfc_bcp_no-mail-loss-during-ns-changes.txt
Thread-Index: +Eal6YD5JAm9ziyWrSzNG7PsYQNn6Q==
X-VR-FullState: 0
X-VR-Score: 0
X-VR-Cause-1: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrkeehgddulecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhf
X-VR-Cause-2: ihhlvgemucfntefrqffuvffgnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucehtddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhrhfvkfgj
X-VR-Cause-3: fhfugggtihfothesrgdttggsredtjeenucfhrhhomhepvhhivhhilheslhgrphhoshhtvgdrnhgvthen
X-VR-Cause-4: ucfkphepuddtrdduvdekrdehledrvddvpdejkedrvdegkedrfeekrddujeeknecurfgrrhgrmhepmhho
X-VR-Cause-5: uggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhinhgvthepuddtrdduvdekrdehledrvddvpdhhvghloheplhhpnhdqphhr
X-VR-Cause-6: ugdqmhhsthhrtddvuddrlhgrphhoshhtvgdpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpeifihhllhgvmhhijhhnshdrshgv
X-VR-Cause-7: sggrshhtihgvnheslhgrphhoshhtvgdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopegunhhsohhpsehivghtfhdrohhr
X-VR-Cause-8: ghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-VR-AvState: No
X-VR-State: 0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Hf4uB5TOUkNYOVtkR8D0dDx9_pA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft idea : rfc_bcp_no-mail-loss-during-ns-changes.txt
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: Thu, 09 May 2019 10:01:25 -0000
Hello, GOOGLE uses a equivalent method to manage his business accounts ^^ see the "text screenshot" of my advanced DNS section from my BOOKMYNAME registrar: Example Google confirm domain ownership googlefffggghhh12345 (your uniq confirm string) CNAME google.com. @ TXT "google-site-verification=(your uniq confirm string)" => The second line also exists for "activate by anticipation the google business account" no ? ^^ I do not say "if google gave the idea, it is the method we will propose" but the lack exists. De: "John Levine" < johnl@taugh.com > À: dnsop@ietf.org Cc: jabley@hopcount.ca Envoyé: Jeudi 9 Mai 2019 04:44:24 Objet: Re: [DNSOP] draft idea : rfc_bcp_no-mail-loss-during-ns-changes.txt Agreed. Also anything that expects to make a flash cut from one set of DNS data to another is doomed to disappointment due to caches, network delays, and lost packets.