Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-pwouters-powerbind

Joe Abley <> Fri, 01 May 2020 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7FB93A1965 for <>; Fri, 1 May 2020 11:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dPPQb4RcgYTl for <>; Fri, 1 May 2020 11:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C1753A1963 for <>; Fri, 1 May 2020 11:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i136so5994289qke.10 for <>; Fri, 01 May 2020 11:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=w7QXqbczKQE1X9FBkghToUWQNxttOwUUx5FS7AoscF8=; b=O2avNkkbPXqPTFGKXY3Fr7p4JfXd2Xnt+8evtmxXMT3BtpGqJHOEWH6OldE1amQoqf OdDm5SNysLrcS4jd23vm9bTBPAanOINja5mnEJe089SM5vinGKZjHbmiC0QgsuCLP1S7 WkI1+UoNNSU1s7DrrfCG6N9WOMYPhcB7K6m0k=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=w7QXqbczKQE1X9FBkghToUWQNxttOwUUx5FS7AoscF8=; b=MkUI7yYPPGrc8x4kvg9Aw916yKPDS2E7sxOtJBbWBF0eU+x7Zvij/QQZnlIaiS22ip BNOTGL8AQMTcHRBwJVU0ZNMojT+2OYfVtz9bTrnQbuXn+5aeMT3WRmE1TfBHj7tt4jgX BpSY4DKp1WzYCVM8RRlJSiHEn9w5J1AZauao0vi7baiEUl4qxcS7fSmeKojm3WJyMdbL cHjOutr+s6cfN2XZkUkiKV9g6kPPPVD6J+7rUDyok/XO32sv2ygIoz3PdCbouRnyxDnk XDCuEslhLOYaxAXI0DYmBQvRgPATqOEcnI3h/pcXMiB5eCqm7x+6JTQZEfHk0iSQAZZp Ud7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZXrVokQr786Mt3jxXXnMZLgo2kKtBv8ppBTeYS4mtCLTLojVNd o+/vPK0FA4dd4F7dHRw/oPF/YcHpRZAQQAGr
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLHSeS5j5ij/SFgRb2KsjxBPy42C1dNXPcNMIpmSptDos2TajGDWBGReoerfZo4kVVa++AFYA==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:4e08:: with SMTP id c8mr3074692qkb.60.1588357942568; Fri, 01 May 2020 11:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2607:f2c0:e784:c7:c0aa:fef0:9558:611e? ([2607:f2c0:e784:c7:c0aa:fef0:9558:611e]) by with ESMTPSA id g8sm3229043qkb.30.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 01 May 2020 11:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Abley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9A0DFB78-BF8D-4204-9EF2-60A45EA48D96"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Fri, 01 May 2020 14:32:19 -0400
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2005011422400.33172@ary.qy>
Cc: Bob Harold <>, IETF DNSOP WG <>
To: John R Levine <>
References: <> <20200501014428.427E818950D7@ary.qy> <> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2005011422400.33172@ary.qy>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-pwouters-powerbind
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 May 2020 18:32:30 -0000

Hi John,

On 1 May 2020, at 14:23, John R Levine <> wrote:

>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 9:44 PM John Levine <> wrote:
>>> I think it's benign to allow any sort of record as an immediate child
>>> of the domain, since you need to go two levels down for split zones.
>>> That handes the nominet and zz--zz cases.
>> Is there any chance that a user trying to reach could
>> get the orphan glue A record for instead of the A record in the
>> real zone?
>> (Just trying to think of cases where orphan glue might make a difference.)
> Only if the zone had NS and A at the same name, which would be pretty broken.

Oh, interesting.

In a sense, a glue record with the same owner name as a zone cut could be equivalent to a glue record with an owner name that is subordinate to a zone cut. I don't have enough of the spec in my head to know why they would definitively be different from the protocol perspective. I realise it's not normal, but I don't know that it's prohibited.

I definitely don't know operationally how different DNS or registrar software implementations treat that case. I don't think the registry systems I'm familiar with allow host and domain objects with the same name to coexist, but I realise I could quite well be wrong.

If I had any more energy to spend at the keyboard today I might be tempted to find out :-)