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

tjw ietf <> Thu, 20 July 2017 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73872126E3A for <>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DzPe8B_nJUg6 for <>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFA78129B43 for <>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v105so39779048wrb.0 for <>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EBTwiVPgghjdhOqZoVcXCL8H1cWZw7A3NjK7a4Dj1eY=; b=kXAIkgkNBl3DYeBl7wt+VNQW8B/pKjxUoLAa3wlyh7k61BYcGOMnoi0lSXGiw/V2sA tnLLRs0niHvCqyMUsYgKZSOGx5GnmITwFbYle8UA7rOML1+widbqqac6MvX2FkkFP5YR 5FLSPEask89CjJyEQ22jLUQOSer8DV11PRE/0iyCf9mgYP997hU9PMr25awPEn9RrfuU wFLDf1f0m8Jfi0ziuqMkAUXHRsMfpxy2vMUTHOvmlTwFmYwBr8LbUJTFGB6ZU1jq393Y vvM+OesQV0XIzmbMj5VZoqxw3SoinxLwuuqwZdpbYbW8/SVDoZPDLkABlXnPPtTlyWib fVEA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EBTwiVPgghjdhOqZoVcXCL8H1cWZw7A3NjK7a4Dj1eY=; b=N8W++I4WVaOI5SVBV9jfWyeb9YPbP698sv4L8ub8tJNcUGQFmPSKsDo8+iNGEfbeBh x21ZJ7ea4FAGqIsAQ31sN1K0gAm2KlkXNsfMYmvgzlwtls8oL+SJYpcs9MzTgDWQETz3 zlKCLj5bQ68XtUfeoocbFZrsjLjnadkvXiKhKEj8p33SVwDXBpt1GbEWnNbW2sly2JR3 5eC6ejI8BWLhxcrA7PEUkT8p48Gfdbwjd7vbV+D1X6YGMd1KS7cx690MuNhP55el3jSO znLSVwWGvnCmK3T8t2XvVWL9pjeiY350TRR3abHrjkh2+nmw0q0DIlxaQbmZzXlMbVVT H46Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110UdSOtLs7jKqFUFwlA+5L48f4sTG1OBp/EbIgm7CslT3gl6aP5 NGnmsHntMXljwa6Yo+7V6+S32KJyPg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id h26mr7308537wrb.100.1500552571506; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <20170719215749.2241.qmail@ary.lan> <A05B583C828C614EBAD1DA920D92866BD081E78B@PODCWMBXEX501.ctl.intranet> <>
From: tjw ietf <>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:09:31 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Jim Reid <>
Cc: "Woodworth, John R" <>, dnsop WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f22aefdde960554be9e4f"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"
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: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:09:37 -0000

Another Data Point:

One of the Apps Area ADs stopped by to tell the chairs that 1) they like
the general idea; 2) their employer has a need for this *outside of the PTR
space*; and 3) would be willing to shepherd the work through.   Now, they
also the first to admit that the Application people do the most abuse to
DNS standards (hence the need for the attrleaf document).

In fact, my employer, who is quite abusive in how they deploy CNAMEs could
very easily work up a very legitimate use case for using BULK for deploying
some of our larger zones.   Add that to the fact that my employer insists
on deploying DNS between multiple vendors - whether it is DNS software or
managed DNS services.

So while it's great to trash IPv6 rDNS (and count me first in line to trash
IPv6 anything), there are actual other reasons why this would be useful.
Just keep that in mind.


On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Jim Reid <> wrote:

> > On 20 Jul 2017, at 03:12, Woodworth, John R <>
> wrote:
> >
> > For now, I think we've narrowed the draft opposition to two camps:
> >
> > Camp#1) Don't force me to use IPv6 reverse, I simply will never
> >
> > and
> >
> > Camp#2) Don't break DNS, even for a second
> Well I don't recognise either of these camps.
> What was it you were saying about beauty being in the eye of the beholder?
> :-)
> I'm in Camp N (for some definition of N): where's the use
> case/justification for BULK and is it worth the effort?
> It's not clear if the WG has fully considered the impact of BULK on signed
> reverse zones. Doing something to the DNS that further hinders uptake of
> DNSSEC is probably a bad idea IMO. YMMV. Proposed protocol changes which do
> that need to come with compelling benefits that outweigh this drawback.
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list