IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-toorop-dnsop-ranking-dns-data-00.txt

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Mon, 11 March 2024 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 173B7C14F6A1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=portfast.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9yBstowWDees for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.portfast.net (mail.portfast.net [IPv6:2a03:9800:20:1::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2951FC14F60C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=portfast.net; s=dkim; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: From:References:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=g69VDLaqn76OD+iNxHPHgRtui09SsO/oVhBbxDagsVU=; b=YXkl9zRNyOvlwKNpeHKxrS5QQW 5YzDMBAYiP+3KTjGiwkNYgEqDq8qf6sw6AYkolWnGmAc9o+cMFw8MBAM++b5VTFwKV/15nfgMuBC6 AmX3mWLhWDAAu3b+mVL3TLBtWRlAKeg+aHlSWUkSv4G/APa5HZ9mgSl79n57RHCnyxng=;
Received: from 92.40.172.102.threembb.co.uk ([92.40.172.102]:12023 helo=[172.20.10.2]) by mail.portfast.net ([188.246.200.9]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_128_GCM:128) id 1rjgfV-006NYh-1u (Exim 4.96) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:30:21 +0000
Message-ID: <9dfb3b11-c5ea-42f0-8aa1-9b0d65066848@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:30:18 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-GB
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <57517c17-fa72-4180-a1ac-b74eac12ca88@NLnetLabs.nl>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
In-Reply-To: <57517c17-fa72-4180-a1ac-b74eac12ca88@NLnetLabs.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/UPO3tMablZ3ptfUzn_rsYf5slrg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-toorop-dnsop-ranking-dns-data-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 11 Mar 2024 14:30:31 -0000

I think this document gives an opportunity to explicitly clarify 
expectations regarding the NS records either side of the zone cut.

I get the impression with DELEG on the horizon that there's a shift 
towards the parent side data being considered more "authoritative" even 
though in protocol terms it explicitly isn't.

Even if that's not the case, discussion of when child-side NS records 
should be purged and then re-learned by following the parent-side 
delegation would be useful.

I also idly wonder what would happen if one were able to incorrectly put 
the DS records for a zone into the child zone...

cheers,

Ray

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email