IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] CDS polling, was Re: [Ext] Re: Clarifying referrals (#35)

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Mon, 13 November 2017 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.org>
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 8EB16129B43 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:45:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7eXs8r_JwLsl for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-1.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3310B129B38 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:45:43 -0800
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:45:43 -0800
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
CC: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] CDS polling, was Re: [Ext] Re: Clarifying referrals (#35)
Thread-Index: AQHTXJLPNUyUqySGDEiQ+i+aqTCpNKMTJ88AgAAEXgA=
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:45:42 +0000
Message-ID: <436111CF-FCA8-44A2-B83D-6540DE6D64AC@icann.org>
References: <20171112075445.tf2ut5dxzhhnqe7l@mx4.yitter.info> <20171112131831.GA32208@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20171113014445.ncldrwnuuvluecx7@mx4.yitter.info> <5A08FD96.8030907@redbarn.org> <20171113020736.ga7rzgst2hurb56h@mx4.yitter.info> <5A09068A.3030206@redbarn.org> <20171113032640.tbn7icsllm6jeeny@mx4.yitter.info> <C9AC653C-9A27-4DA3-A0FA-9F1BFD429962@icann.org> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1711131456200.26046@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20171113183004.GA35038@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20171113183004.GA35038@isc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3593425542_1874074950"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/U7nOYrZhxgPbKyNj2fhiudTwBvo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] CDS polling, was Re: [Ext] Re: Clarifying referrals (#35)
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, 13 Nov 2017 18:45:46 -0000

On 11/13/17, 13:30, "DNSOP on behalf of Evan Hunt" <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of each@isc.org> wrote:

>Mark's idea to push updates to the parent instead of relying on polling used a SRV query to identify the correct recipient of an UPDATE:
>
>    ...draft-andrews-dnsop-update-parent-zones-04...
 
This would mean then signing all the SRV sets, so I assume to preserve the benefits of "OPTOUT", you'd want these only for the names that had DS sets.  For the others, I assume either no answer or the wildcard ... in the TLD.  (That latter thought might be unsettling to some people.)  What I mean is that there is still a scaling problem, in some dimension, to deal with because the DNS is inherently a "down-only" tree.

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status