Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-02.txt

Joe Abley <> Tue, 27 July 2021 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 411AE3A1146 for <>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LG2nZGzRU5xV for <>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FBFE3A1143 for <>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t68so30940qkf.8 for <>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=a8mtOasvzNYmSkYfX4CL8buenf3CQVq9NWa+9mrTbCU=; b=NYJut3Qhik/QY+EHRFI3s+X5Fs2+zv0amhQLwXi5ggOzEJGg7L7UEHjrV3KE/C04rn imvBZ+7EgLvl7FeLBWeGGa4rd1ApDpmzRLkTcOweAwpJCfM/0daTJY52SH2MDS3zENGd guQlfU/L51e0ZuTlE7ovB8+rHn9s2miDWkybw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=a8mtOasvzNYmSkYfX4CL8buenf3CQVq9NWa+9mrTbCU=; b=CtnqFg2M39Ayjr2VGnJvFv9m8ovvimOSpVCiibQIPcB8OStdqadbkyESOOczmVsYjM mu6ow/WzOvN0/T8YIbezjJDF4kfsrmKMMWCBF06YlTLC0xjusOY1iy0qpK7ZXg2YlGvv Zi1BRkRzxRzTjqmrHigTX6SZPbXKaehOaP0tuy2jaMu1XMUNFRznmd7krACxpKMDPF3O sukZJusnb/K0fg7g2Ib9lfqnLuuZALjas98hONOT3HzyrbWJf+PIHa+1TP7dcSYpfAvY 1//y6tQgNfiFp2CvaWacMF+op01HVAsv5Iw6wWxfoTfW4I9Jbhv2QeLRONq2JeplzXJw N2kA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530xOFUAK70BOYGO85NfsQxShqZlCMoh1L09L2/puGRa3pC57Rrg Ybg7tquQIrysQ8gPxrq3Uv6rng==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyDGO9fGNBlugtQPDoSMZWyP+mg5QGOzUHz5dcfEQYDFv4z3efCapf+GqvENueQXgppOjKgWg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:808:: with SMTP id s8mr24261434qks.399.1627417714153; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([2607:f2c0:e784:c7:b805:c12b:4bdd:b212]) by with ESMTPSA id w185sm2326496qkd.30.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
From: Joe Abley <>
In-Reply-To: <20210727201504.2939B25365A4@ary.qy>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 16:28:32 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <20210727201504.2939B25365A4@ary.qy>
To: John Levine <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:28:41 -0000

On 27 Jul 2021, at 16:15, John Levine <> wrote:

>> * Section 5: Promoted or orphan glue
>> The considerations for handling orphan glue will be different for a
>> TLD vs a lower level zone within a domain. I would think that orphan
>> glue in a TLD context should go away when a zone is deleted/expired.
>> Maybe even have sanity checking to prevent such an operation.
> This is a political question, not a technical one. If the DNS operator
> has external knowledge that the orphan's domain has not been delegated
> to someone else, you can make a case to leave the glue. The usual
> example is a name in a TLD which has expired but is still in the grace period,
> but it can happen anywhere someone delegates names; I run registries
> at the third level like
> I don't see how we can offer any more than general and vague advice here.

I agree, and I think the best plan is to remove any mention of it. Orphan glue is by definition not glue. It once was glue, but that has no bearing on how to craft a referral response. It's out of scope for this document.

At best, I think the term "orphan glue" belongs in a taxonomy concerned with registry terminology, not DNS terminology. And although one of the ways in which domain registries publish information is in the DNS, it's rarely a good idea to conflate the two.