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

"Peter van Dijk" <> Fri, 21 July 2017 23:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35824129AFF for <>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aN5OZ9PftaHg for <>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:1b0:202:40::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8200129482 for <>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: peter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 770A71BD15; Sat, 22 Jul 2017 01:55:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Peter van Dijk" <>
To: "dnsop WG" <>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 01:55:58 +0200
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <20170719215749.2241.qmail@ary.lan> <A05B583C828C614EBAD1DA920D92866BD081E78B@PODCWMBXEX501.ctl.intranet> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
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: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 23:56:01 -0000


On 20 Jul 2017, at 14:09, tjw ietf wrote:

> 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.

It would be very helpful if the mentioned AD, or your employer, could 
elaborate on these use cases. As it stands we (PowerDNS) do not see the 
point of BULK (even though we are capable of online signing and thus 
have it easier than some of the other name servers), but we could 
certainly be convinced otherwise.

Kind regards,
Peter van Dijk