Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-only is still not useful

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 25 March 2021 01:35 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 46EC53A15C6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 SikYa2OpuH31 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 AC3A43A15C5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F5SN13mxHzFKs; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 02:35:13 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1616636113; bh=uktFy5oHTvYwGa0qiuhe4AaNTZ09iE0IZ2ee4aMHoEQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=TXf2bM4bvIRti6k6HnZanIg/DXAVG4boxrsQlV1CbQ2a/qmVAEFG/gaQcVSN/QaqN KrqIcxI6U6Y67MQY0Af92fMATBxPsdUrOF8sFqCDeQNUbA2W8YKv8ZOM7zAqAqApbI X89bsanTpYFn1qFcmANnCvAOMC6+iS5Gw/OdoQnM=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T5g06zZbRW31; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 02:35:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 02:35:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 633426029A46; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 21:35:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 620186FD7F; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 21:35:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 21:35:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
cc: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20210307231602.27B506FC6E8D@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <3a5e86c7-b21d-8180-48f1-c87e9f665b@nohats.ca>
References: <20210307231602.27B506FC6E8D@ary.qy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/aRIUSeJpQhxxWZHOyPj7i6ZIyQI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-only is still not useful
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: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 01:35:21 -0000

On Sun, 7 Mar 2021, John Levine wrote:

> I poked around and agree with you that there isn't much other than A
> and AAAA signed glue-ish records.

> But as I said in November, there is a lot of signed glue, it is not going away,
> and this draft does not match reality.

A solution was given for moving signed glue to its own sub zone. I understand
you don't think that solution works for you. That is fine.

> Nothing has changed and I don't see any reason to waste more time with it.

I think there could be TLDs and SLDs that want to deploy this single
bit. If you want to stop wasting time, you could just let those who want
it have the code point.

Paul