IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [internet-drafts@ietf.org: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]

Chris Thompson <cet1@cam.ac.uk> Thu, 05 December 2013 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C111ADF99 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 04:15:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ve00jDzuk89t for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 04:15:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:212:8::e:f52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4D041ADF97 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 04:15:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:52445) by ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:cet1) id 1VoXqM-0003Ls-Du (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) (return-path <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 05 Dec 2013 12:15:46 +0000
Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:cet1) id 1VoXqM-0001OU-8R (Exim 4.72) (return-path <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 05 Dec 2013 12:15:46 +0000
Received: from [131.111.56.28] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 05 Dec 2013 12:15:46 +0000
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 12:15:46 +0000
From: Chris Thompson <cet1@cam.ac.uk>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.5.1312051215460.21609@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <1DA98CD6C61144088EA480D71E51AF3D@hopcount.ca>
References: <BF87877A-8989-4AA4-9ED1-52C82E1BC538@nominum.com> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1312011206480.12923@bofh.nohats.ca> <20131202151651.GD16808@mx1.yitter.info> <A12FD3E0-58F6-4490-877F-A9C59405F717@vpnc.org> <6DBBC8339C394DBDAE4FE1F764E02A8D@hopcount.ca> <20131203170825.GA17211@nic.fr> <21D03162-81D1-494A-89A9-41BE89D28A0E@nominum.com> <BB7627E9-8D50-48E5-B809-64AE4D574271@virtualized.org> <20131203221006.GB5689@sources.org> <D3E446D0-F9ED-4671-A1C2-29A15D3DE010@virtualized.org> <20131204094449.GA5492@nic.fr> <9650BF6D-727B-4EF3-B357-7E4E2FDDE0AF@virtualized.org> <2614C613-1399-429D-856B-5E2C18DCA7A6@kumari.net> <1DA98CD6C61144088EA480D71E51AF3D@hopcount.ca>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Sender: Chris Thompson <cet1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [internet-drafts@ietf.org: I-D Action: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cet1@cam.ac.uk
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 12:15:53 -0000

On Dec 4 2013, Joe Abley wrote:

[...snip...]
>There was at least one study commissioned by ICANN on the prudence of
>provisioning DNAME RRs in the root zone that concluded that there was
>no obvious danger, but remember that any novel RRTypes in the root zone
>are going to need implementation time in the systems and processes
>involved in root zone management, and such changes have proven in the
>past to be neither quick nor easy.

How would such DNAMEs interact with use of BIND's "root-delegation-only"
(or equivalents, if any, in other software)? Do we have any idea how
widespread use of that option is?

When "ipv4only.arpa" appeared as a delegation in October, I did wonder
why it wasn't just an A rrset in the "arpa" zone, until I thought of
that issue. Although maybe the reasoning was actually different.

-- 
Chris Thompson               University of Cambridge Computing Service,
Email: cet1@ucs.cam.ac.uk    Roger Needham Building, 7 JJ Thomson Avenue,
Phone: +44 1223 334715       Cambridge CB3 0RB, United Kingdom.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email