Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-02.txt

Brian Dickson <> Tue, 27 July 2021 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663063A11E5 for <>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:44:47 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 iB8dIFIO6jgI for <>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 178B93A11D9 for <>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a26so23907708lfr.11 for <>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BVScgcftRLpN3NuGc+Ai2vbLDQ5X1tgB8d9u+6KjylM=; b=jbIU410KONDxvkBAGEjPe9xPvlCQXN32Dd6Ckk8r/YQwO/3AI1WrYSadEap3wbWu5d IvzS0J1jRlsogKk2ehtFipEzsg2HFRAPpj+Xxt49/UnVMBHe75/Ua/54M409N+2nWHtq BQQsumFpa74eEb/iNTmiQFF17qmbgQYg0+zIKyG35iR7TJx8N1EjHjVc4dRmDZhVVhOm cWDnIceV/xXLjYZAEzGksUbhBIfGKxw3cU7n04BWiMDEwmepvuGIxhdEI1fVJYSlMuGE WQS7YZcsUgDiJfkh4RGTV5hJiwZ32mA0xEm+IgLaOuThhlK9O7+ljqHNWkoT7CvI3ggW PuPw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BVScgcftRLpN3NuGc+Ai2vbLDQ5X1tgB8d9u+6KjylM=; b=jPiZ2PiRLrnBzkLXnTHVFtiSDDsbFfegMKb5dpss1ymqnhOWSrWijwfz324D28Oal9 1HseKx0hQcANrv6SlaYqziMOnsUn5ux1nAgyA7sOcfUXJyD+zJavBzqgvEjEHlostMby 3XeGDSmmApyAn6KwTpoOgbKbyCfKuz6Y4ozZjQ9zKG3H9sajtAOxayr6mnBJ1kxKcupS DUKSpDA1crz8eXR20WP9HD+ktVtb+JlfKu81lqAvslvE37toK4f3eP3nSnJrczGes1Wl hsWrfP0wRHivwvcJzHhe1y8gHeXT9acVPdfH3UPnpbISaPdIRFQ9LYfc7ql3BRc37Kx+ 7/Gg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53241/KaY7Veae9kGXDhqh9MzKgSfOr5+kAmAUSqhA/vq1QM/BN/ CHlP8+A/j3EimX+rxjqy/EQmd7PYcPrwtvy8+2E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz0bxvasaRdXnyf+0wmDQoHuhtZ/hil1fxmYeOy+PbwY3dX9pg5NcG3KPoWduJVV0qsmsrz28BeXa4o6xwPSJQ=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5b92:: with SMTP id o18mr17836018lfn.316.1627418679669; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210727201504.2939B25365A4@ary.qy> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Brian Dickson <>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:44:28 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Joe Abley <>
Cc: John Levine <>, " WG" <>, Puneet Sood <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004d778605c820f01e"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-02.txt
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: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:44:48 -0000

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 1:29 PM Joe Abley <> wrote:

> On 27 Jul 2021, at 16:15, John Levine <> wrote:
> >> * Section 5: Promoted or orphan glue
> >> The considerations for handling orphan glue will be different for a
> >> TLD vs a lower level zone within a domain. I would think that orphan
> >> glue in a TLD context should go away when a zone is deleted/expired.
> >> Maybe even have sanity checking to prevent such an operation.
> >
> > This is a political question, not a technical one. If the DNS operator
> > has external knowledge that the orphan's domain has not been delegated
> > to someone else, you can make a case to leave the glue. The usual
> > example is a name in a TLD which has expired but is still in the grace
> period,
> > but it can happen anywhere someone delegates names; I run registries
> > at the third level like
> >
> > I don't see how we can offer any more than general and vague advice here.
> I agree, and I think the best plan is to remove any mention of it. Orphan
> glue is by definition not glue. It once was glue, but that has no bearing
> on how to craft a referral response. It's out of scope for this document.
> At best, I think the term "orphan glue" belongs in a taxonomy concerned
> with registry terminology, not DNS terminology. And although one of the
> ways in which domain registries publish information is in the DNS, it's
> rarely a good idea to conflate the two.
I'd like to point out a (now moot) nit to the original comment(s): Instead
of TLD, it is probably more correct to refer to "Registry". E.g. in John
L's response about operating a third-level Registry, it isn't a TLD but is
still a Registry.

(I only point this out so that in future, any commentary that starts out
with someone writing "TLD", that they might correct themselves and write