Re: [DNSOP] Delegation into the interior of a zone?

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 29 December 2018 00:27 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 137C7131214 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Dec 2018 16:27:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=56poQenG; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=CXq6ysOm
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 mr4tyIHZZdnq for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Dec 2018 16:27:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 7AA9D130E9F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Dec 2018 16:27:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 67353 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2018 00:27:16 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=10717.5c26bf64.k1812; bh=KJXjot09qcyIu2CajaPx9u9KacdY/tuQDL5QdVChXyA=; b=56poQenGAq5JZrOdpIDGa/G0hVuBXiZ9muQBj7l1NaoKDiPGOk5WfBfukPGYEmHNrb0mJD2hCL/A2I4VCMIwCx+zspltSuP4g4At80n0Pm7qUOnNglvLO5NhnKDuoeqWr6NzMVWCdwCnRwPQlG77jqLLLgi958xyA/qpq/JaFMbMqA5SkQsTnhBQU0kfJqgcpRU8cYqsbpMTx836OMQNqURGBTh5OE8sC1u+aZdN83w61m8FOupr3Uo/kSmnQ0xP
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=10717.5c26bf64.k1812; bh=KJXjot09qcyIu2CajaPx9u9KacdY/tuQDL5QdVChXyA=; b=CXq6ysOmvr5mXfwYCa5elsk7uOpIwJz+MLGYJIttOWQh1amWokxGHqos8oPLdzfZkjx8w4NF/+OpmusImkIffTQqwkDFUnwJ/+M+/rD1BiNXQOfSBWeg+VkXcMt++0Ww1ZCCh5TYJaEFXTtvu4XMOuI+evXNuqnkSYBrrG5dkcPuM2D7tNuS4eXjxnlbMopyR/w4dua7fczzv1oxopNpkqefxIIEJ0kV+lrxQ6npKsY9M7T3fiT1NPkFdUYPvk/8
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 29 Dec 2018 00:27:15 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id ACDAA200C0A01D; Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:27:15 -0500 (EST)
Date: 28 Dec 2018 19:27:15 -0500
Message-Id: <20181229002715.ACDAA200C0A01D@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net
In-Reply-To: <75210e98-1eac-60a4-426e-f2f8d00b6baf@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/TuC9hXuI5HdBl6spXx3j0H1HRG4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Delegation into the interior of a zone?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 00:27:19 -0000

In article <75210e98-1eac-60a4-426e-f2f8d00b6baf@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>; you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On 12/28/18 3:27 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> I'd think it depends whether invalid delegations bother them, like if, 
>> say, ns1.example.com might not be running BIND.
>
>You seem to be conflating the two independent issues at hand:

Not really.

>1)  Use of RFC 2317's CNAME technique vs the NS technique I'm advocating 
>(be it to the interior or apex of the zone).

Right.  CNAME is valid, NS to the interior of the zone is not.

>2)  Use of $GENERATE vs manually creating individual records.

I agree this doesn't matter.  If you say users can't deal with
$GENERATE, you have my sympathy, but that has nothing to do with whether
your records are valid.

R's,
John