Re: [DNSOP] [art] Another look - draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-05.txt

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 29 March 2018 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 33B3212E741; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=dcrocker.net
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 clBKF1SYAhYI; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 9C9AC124234; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w2TN5EP8027985 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:05:14 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1522364715; bh=Mae0Av+/d8+/pIMnW78cdrGsGb8rPCnJCkoJrnGb8xo=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=IA1vWesrjs/Wv6LcvsnqFCQXSVQCWcqmRGgKiwVqzV0TVx4cSpbntQnuiJ1mxZ8cH X8EEA5Fqk8ItUxmfWq86F2ahWbK+wg1qPR05sASaX43Bs4izRl3nZTt7CmcFnLqaAR kv62gMEtoX6IDrI5jNSoclyUd4vahVP+Rla7uM4M=
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art@ietf.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <f7b85bac-b050-5003-2df0-a48b1ef2f929@dcrocker.net> <e1f41670-ada8-eaac-468c-c712b338a10b@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803201804440.8940@dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org> <A7711F58-5145-49E8-9158-B2F94D0EABBF@redbarn.org> <7c168dc1-2ea7-d47e-78b7-0380e5d0aa84@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803211104210.9553@ary.local> <5244d327-f8ea-1590-c663-1d92e0b194c4@dcrocker.net> <5F44FA5B42805C52479DE491@PSB> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1803211507380.9666@dhcp-935d.meeting.ietf.org> <1DF1564CC2B88726B2B54CF4@PSB> <20180326171842.0eacbdc4@smaug.local.partim.de> <32837C4DF5CB5BDD00DAD0FD@PSB> <fe24bb1d-a2e2-c50a-4293-b9c4cadcfc69@dcrocker.net> <C10EFF0FB6AC68625A75D485@PSB> <CAHw9_i+69CGrZnW6XqvP6Qk1Cw+QoFKHCzqO4Hb=C6UkDvZkVg@mail.gmail.com> <e18bc940-184c-1031-b24b-d549d126dff4@dcrocker.net> <CAHw9_i+81GzP_FPdmJzCO8-sMtCM+W+SmbQ=90fFOE+BS2dzFw@mail.gmail.com> <305CF8969698D734073250E4@PSB> <401307d2-b8bf-5d77-6a3d-e978fc84c834@nostrum.com>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <22c00f7f-ca31-faf4-2edc-9b9e09bb4852@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:03:40 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <401307d2-b8bf-5d77-6a3d-e978fc84c834@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/anBr-ouSJv07u-S71FOyvsK5nCA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [art] Another look - draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-05.txt
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 23:03:50 -0000

On 3/29/2018 3:38 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> I still don't fully understand the nature of the objections I cite above 
> or the assertions that having separate tables for different RRTYPEs is 
> somehow broken. Based on my (admittedly lay) understanding of how DNS is 
> used by other protocols, I agree with your proposal that having distinct 
> tables for each RRTYPE makes far more sense than the current structure.


1. Another round of thanks. On re-starting the effort, I'd missed that 
exchange.  I think adding

      "Scope is meant as a static property, not one dependent on the 
nature of the query.  It is an artifact of the DNS name."

from it, to the Intro will help a bit.

2. I think the latest round of discussion and change arguably implements 
your view, albeit within a single actual registry.


d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net