Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 19 July 2017 21:58 UTC
Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 295791317D4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 iRzCVtQ4yPsR for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (w6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::4945:4343]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A22CC12F29A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 14488 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2017 21:58:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 19 Jul 2017 21:58:11 -0000
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 21:57:49 -0000
Message-ID: <20170719215749.2241.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: paul@nohats.ca
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1707190347390.10419@ns0.nohats.ca>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/cCrNAdxIL_V_reTcZEHsjjXq8BU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"
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: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 21:58:14 -0000
In article <alpine.LRH.2.20.1707190347390.10419@ns0.nohats.ca> you write: >We are adding something to DNS that's not just a new RRTYPE. It requires >code changes and has a deployment and long tail. ... I realize that my biggest problem with this draft is not that I don't think that it's useful -- we have lots of RFCs that turned out to be useless but harmless. It's that it breaks the DNS by being egregiously not backward compatible. I would strongly prefer if we defer consideration of this draft until we figure out how to do DNS versioning, some way to say that this record type (and consequently, the zone returned to this AXFR or IXFR) requires special processing, and if you don't know how to do the processing, don't guess. This would update or perhaps even replace RFC 3597. We did this in a horrible ad-hoc way with DNSSEC, and even with DNSSEC there's the fallback that the unsigned answers you get from a server that doesn't understand RRSIG et al. are for many purposes adequate. But with BULK, if a secondary doesn't understand it, the answers will just be wrong. This might be something like an EDNS item which includes the need-to-understand rrtypes, but I'd prefer to do it in a way that will make the AXFR or IXFR result invalid to an old server that doesn't understand it. R's, John PS: h/t to Andrew Sullivan who replied to my suggestion that people do BULK in a stunt server by noting that we're here to make things interoperate.
- [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-b… IETF Secretariat
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Jim Reid
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Woodworth, John R
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Woodworth, John R
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Jim Reid
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… sthaug
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Woodworth, John R
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Woodworth, John R
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … Woodworth, John R
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … Jim Reid
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … tjw ietf
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … Matthew Pounsett
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … Peter van Dijk
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Peter van Dijk
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … Woodworth, John R
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … Woodworth, John R
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … Woodworth, John R
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Jim Reid
- [DNSOP] missing use case and problem statement fo… Jim Reid
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Woodworth, John R
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … Woodworth, John R
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Woodworth, John R
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … Woodworth, John R
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Woodworth, John R
- Re: [DNSOP] missing use case and problem statemen… Woodworth, John R
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Vernon Schryver
- Re: [DNSOP] missing use case and problem statemen… Jim Reid
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … Ondřej Surý
- Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has … Matthew Pounsett
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Woodworth, John R
- Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodwor… Petr Špaček