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

Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> Mon, 07 August 2017 12:38 UTC

Return-Path: <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
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 7D185129A92 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 05:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 oMq2g9se48JG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 05:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EC22127ABE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 05:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.76] (unknown [77.236.194.38]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ECA566245E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 14:38:11 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1502109492; bh=eJz3FTsustWnWNbBqlSuMbKyYqKIJSW10t/Ed228cF8=; h=To:From:Date; b=Rmd/IvHR/D1TQHsABCNHHakx5s5RKRMAiSp0LILFvuSfneTbm40uAhakkvjlwnruK 7jXLrJXvAGZx9TJ2K2C+YMEqNtziTo9kCjFTYAUt0bF4VMadynrR+vRNp7v51qr6Uk Bri0BJdJmYRbCdASqZjzk7OJgvIkb/vbshmpPnaM=
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <150040947342.11401.6673996996138598307.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKr6gn3xHZ6bzSSLoLt0FQzBrunqFPa-PFG6bAjLpfdEsD_iGQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.1707190347390.10419@ns0.nohats.ca> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1707191023090.27210@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <A05B583C828C614EBAD1DA920D92866BD081C441@PODCWMBXEX501.ctl.intranet> <AED0BED0-BF26-4FD2-9ACD-F2043C248C1A@rfc1035.com> <A05B583C828C614EBAD1DA920D92866BD081E686@PODCWMBXEX501.ctl.intranet> <3E029203-62B9-43ED-992C-CBF4A33156EC@powerdns.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1707241428270.16637@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Message-ID: <76a859a5-b7b8-6609-7bc9-d1fe50fd7a58@nic.cz>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 14:38:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1707241428270.16637@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/R9QrCOyeKfkA01K-ubHrDqtcioQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] 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: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 12:38:17 -0000


On 24.7.2017 15:43, Tony Finch wrote:
> Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> 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