Return-Path: 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 4CFF81311D4 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2018 14:50:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 zgVkhIyj1k6r for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2018 14:50:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 404EC1311D3 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2018 14:50:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.245.49.95] (unknown [198.217.64.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D08E5892C6; Fri, 28 Dec 2018 22:50:50 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <20181228222732.6BEC3200C09338@ary.qy> References: <20181228222732.6BEC3200C09338@ary.qy> X-Referenced-Uid: 719101 Thread-Topic: Re: [DNSOP] Delegation into the interior of a zone? User-Agent: Android X-Is-Generated-Message-Id: true MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----6IV61HQ496XX6JCCOM439ON0FE3EK6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Paul Vixie Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 14:50:32 -0800 To: John Levine CC: dnsop@ietf.org,gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net Message-ID: <69d3097d-ae1a-4158-a1f0-4ff6ba0673d3@redbarn.org> Archived-At: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 22:50:56 -0000 ------6IV61HQ496XX6JCCOM439ON0FE3EK6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I once write a full resolve that checked both sides of every delegation poi= nt and remembered both sets of ns records=2E It would not have followed an = ns to a non-soa=2E That would not be wrong=2E On Dec 28, 2018, 14:27, at 1= 4:27, John Levine wrote: >In article ><2f50b5bd-ea7d-80= 09-f207-cce3cddf3bf5@spamtrap=2Etnetconsulting=2Enet> you >write: >>Both wo= rk perfectly fine=2E named-compilezone produces the expected >lines=2E >> = >>1=2Elocalhost=2E 604800 IN CNAME 1=2Ebob=2Eexample=2Enet=2E >>2=2Eloc= alhost=2E 604800 IN CNAME 2=2Ebob=2Eexample=2Enet=2E >>3=2Elocalhost=2E= 604800 IN CNAME 3=2Ebob=2Eexample=2Enet=2E >>4=2Elocalhost=2E 604800 = IN CNAME 4=2Ebob=2Eexample=2Enet=2E >>5=2Elocalhost=2E 604800 IN NS = ns1=2Eexample=2Ecom=2E >>6=2Elocalhost=2E 604800 IN NS ns1=2Eexam= ple=2Ecom=2E >>7=2Elocalhost=2E 604800 IN NS ns1=2Eexample=2Ecom=2E = >>8=2Elocalhost=2E 604800 IN NS ns1=2Eexample=2Ecom=2E >> >>Which of= the two methods above is easier (or poses fewer questions) to > >>understa= nd by someone who's not familiar with BIND, much less >$GENERATE? > >I'd th= ink it depends whether invalid delegations bother them, like if, >say, ns1= =2Eexample=2Ecom might not be running BIND=2E > >R's, >John > >____________= ___________________________________ >DNSOP mailing list >DNSOP@ietf=2Eorg >= https://www=2Eietf=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/dnsop ------6IV61HQ496XX6JCCOM439ON0FE3EK6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I once write a full resolve that= checked both sides of every delegation point and remembered both sets of n= s records=2E It would not have followed an ns to a non-soa=2E That would no= t be wrong=2E
On Dec 28, 2018, at 14:27, = John Levine <john= l@taugh=2Ecom> wrote:
In article <2f50b5bd-ea7d-8009-f207-cc=
e3cddf3bf5@spamtrap=2Etnetconsulting=2Enet> you write:
Both work perfectly fine=2E  named-compi=
lezone produces the expected lines=2E

1=2Elocalhost=2E  604800  IN  =
CNAME  1=2Ebob=2Eexample=2Enet=2E
2=2Elocalhost=2E  604800  IN  CNAME  2=2Ebob=2Eexample=2Enet=2E
3=2Elocalhost=2E  604800  I=
N  CNAME  3=2Ebob=2Eexample=2Ene=
t=2E
4=2Elocalhost=2E  604800  IN  CNAME  4=2Ebob=2Eexample=2Enet=2E
5=2Elocalhost=2E  60480=
0  IN  NS     ns1=2Eexample=2Ecom=2E
6=2Elocalhost=2E  604800  IN  NS     ns1=2Eexample=2Ecom=2E
7=2Elocalhost=2E  604800  IN  NS    =
 ns1=2Eexample=2Ecom=2E
8=2El=
ocalhost=2E  604800  IN  NS     ns1=
=2Eexample=2Ecom=2E

Which of the two methods above is easier (or=
 poses fewer questions) to 
understand by someone who's not familiar wit=
h BIND, much less $GENERATE?

I'd think it depends wheth=
er invalid delegations bother them, like if,
say, ns1=2Eexample=2Ecom might not be running BIND=2E
<=
br>R's,
John


DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf=2Eorg
https://www=2Eiet=
f=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
------6IV61HQ496XX6JCCOM439ON0FE3EK6--