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

[Petr Špaček <[e-mail]>]

On 24.7.2017 15:43, Tony Finch wrote:
> Peter van Dijk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> One could make $GENERATE more efficient without actually implementing
>> the BULK RR, by taking your pattern matching logic and implementing it
>> inside the name server.
> 
> Andrew Sullivan was right to say that there is an advantage to having BULK
> as an RR compared to the $GENERATE master file directive, because an RR
> makes it easier to interoperate across multiple providers in a
> multi-master DNS setup.
> 
> I guess a BULK that is just a standardized version of $GENERATE (with
> multi-master-only online signing when there's an unfeasible number of
> generated records) isn't a completely terrible idea, though it's a lot
> less complicated than the current draft.

I agree that a BULK version simplified to bare bones (auth side only)
might closer to acceptable. Still, it will not solve interoperability
problem because we would need a mechanism to transfer signing keys along
the BULK RR.

> I'd still like to see lots more specific examples of how it could be used
> other than for v6 reverse DNS.

Yes please, use-cases would be very welcome.


Right now it seems like *a lot* of complexity which is in my eyes not
justified. Thank you for understanding.

-- 
Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC