Re: [DNSOP] Terminology question: split DNS

Artyom Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com> Wed, 21 March 2018 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ximaera@gmail.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 BF7E312EABD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 LJ_HpmIyVwyt for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22a.google.com (mail-vk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7909E12EA62 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id r197so3712773vke.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=f1eMVq17aCMO6fOhFNpUx6J+Uyn1NTuA9Q45ONXIXzQ=; b=ZI4Y/u60Bi51EITo1qttUEMpVSX0Fl2/dQDqRaKspz4HWtZZA/kSJmnnzLQ2VXPXSe veaQfAln2K28ebUZhrcV7YNgl4AGQ8w0rXhDvLA+AD0j1qP/CmjeMQyDAQhDEL865sRa J0/CzBknC2gMI4iW6iTdLkSIi0CN100fyeFj76tQHY4+MWC4B6s1m8KqZPDVZ5Pxfnk/ NbVw0qapXgKe0TW3IwzfUEiILUobWq+XmOiBry5Tnr67RGdMsAJlUiMXQETmo4jwrENP L55Q/n9Ct1RoUwKTWkvv3G3P5/4X8RSp9igQKAJesTxdlaeMfgrWJuCFP/LtG+bteDZx 7SyQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=f1eMVq17aCMO6fOhFNpUx6J+Uyn1NTuA9Q45ONXIXzQ=; b=ujoTE0SLWrVJM1S0pggejRZADoH+0pxBraNPomwrDBOQlftejWAlCgTdVQ0biEroxM h3DdLVf8gizldPD0XudXeaYLxygwbq3gU5L1+nhpOns2m8MRyiyvy8lr1/gn+CA8jNz4 LmN01NgxzXY3cPuUC63mD1K1lQJzZgISFE9ioI3iGMgThCuy4dypkMldy1XJA3nynkFq ZmwbomWl58tmjWBDE+YWGKpNAVCYlFMbNAek4+bXLIVyZlLlFPtu752QbeEaZnAsF2lS thnn0WcsdUgRu+9GoRiSfV45WzJMiinUB4j9Fi1ZHClX0l0CoPjwFQ6h1hAgeccDUoru 54vA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FweA5wwju1rTYJW2XnMbhNl4lAiafAmdlLqT8vNTNXVMjigHrC Q2tHPSsZmieRCrOLdmy6zJcYViZXOWGbG8J5PTjl8RVv
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtGHgvnPMnsk+BZ6kFGJCg6J+9cg1pYouAvnP6FFwA1KvDXjK4tRP49DYrquT6bK9XLtJ02De1/MeeAPwjE/EQ=
X-Received: by 10.31.69.85 with SMTP id s82mr9328621vka.162.1521657866241; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.57.111 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <c4ce2d41-8af3-9ad2-4c1a-3b1433786592@brokendns.net>
References: <3D490CA8-0733-47AD-A088-113B1116B207@vpnc.org> <CALZ3u+a9o1g0ZTkGjqWwfyV9phovEgu6Linp137yvM=JHSnj-A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+nkc8DrHTVkbPJDEGksnoN3e-DQtKV1=owOA5pLAUWG+depzw@mail.gmail.com> <CALZ3u+bs+uDm16UiHp6fAF+EyrA9FBcbvYhRap76Wb6MCz_vOg@mail.gmail.com> <374BF611-71C4-4E37-A725-B214527328A0@rfc1035.com> <c4ce2d41-8af3-9ad2-4c1a-3b1433786592@brokendns.net>
From: Artyom Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 18:44:05 +0000
Message-ID: <CALZ3u+Zx9XHudSXsg2EV2EcW5231Ox0dVQS5k4s38psL4msRAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Sinatra <michael@brokendns.net>
Cc: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/PXpP2WNji8EJMiu8kYVI4GQayCE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Terminology question: split DNS
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: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 18:44:48 -0000

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Michael Sinatra <michael@brokendns.net>; wrote:
> Rather than try for some physical demarcation like "firewall" or "network,"
> why don't we simply say "organizationally-defined perimeter" or "perimeter
> defined by the organization," which leaves it vague enough to support the
> "many potential variants"?
>
> Use: "Where a corporate [enterprise?] network serves partly or completely
> different DNS based on a client's location inside or outside of a perimeter
> defined by that organization."
>
> This also gives the enterprise organization both the authority (and onus) to
> define its perimeter in a reasonable logical way.

+1
A good idea actually.

| Artyom Gavrichenkov
| gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191
| mailto: ximaera@gmail.com
| fb: ximaera
| telegram: xima_era
| skype: xima_era
| tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58