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

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Thu, 20 July 2017 11:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
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 9195E131C06 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 04:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ZX6gJ7dXhWSH for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 04:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (shaun.rfc1035.com [93.186.33.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AC00131C10 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 04:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-8e9b.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-8e9b.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.142.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B05612421527; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:36:38 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <A05B583C828C614EBAD1DA920D92866BD081E78B@PODCWMBXEX501.ctl.intranet>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:36:38 +0100
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6901EEC2-5F25-4F28-AB5D-0F164D5077A5@rfc1035.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1707190347390.10419@ns0.nohats.ca> <20170719215749.2241.qmail@ary.lan> <A05B583C828C614EBAD1DA920D92866BD081E78B@PODCWMBXEX501.ctl.intranet>
To: "Woodworth, John R" <John.Woodworth@CenturyLink.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/M6JKJrH3TM_zmNvAghAKdu5hAIk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was 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: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:36:47 -0000

> On 20 Jul 2017, at 03:12, Woodworth, John R <John.Woodworth@CenturyLink.com> 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.