Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.
Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> Fri, 02 February 2018 09:41 UTC
Return-Path: <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
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 D658912FA97 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 01:41:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.03
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.03 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 Hf6c7PLlcSue for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 01:41:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (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 DF0FE12FA9C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 01:41:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:50ac:a8ff:fe3d:429] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:50ac:a8ff:fe3d:429]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 259C563B82 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 10:41:44 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1517564504; bh=DpTDff6DDGC+raum/cx+eAYRNQsl3EsWYpLJDSV1Y+k=; h=From:To:Date; b=YHEJYzk5+6N4yvIGFo/CX6Hp5OSaPCmXxKnfAFmYJxhxCxdbXjGs3EHMTXx4kQHg1 k8HpvQcPRdm3NOrdRbHwzaeFJui+sJ1zYvg4l//tRKakE9QHS/eN+4NQpVV1P+kjEq D5ZK2VckHWIcfk2jgPr0hYggCCqGUlLlGjOiqncQ=
References: <CAHw9_iKnD4WtTKyof=nm4ChmDZ5mAPqA7a_-m1t_Lauugf4Uow@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1801251505070.5022@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAHw9_iJ-gwC1ZoWQ3YiJraD3eoUf-9-Ay--rPYzy1zWYUzvYmg@mail.gmail.com> <FDCED4D6-A7CE-465B-8344-CA89753ADF19@vpnc.org> <74C0CA59-6D53-4A60-ACBA-4AF5B51FE3FF@apnic.net> <D5D013D4-1EAD-434B-863A-29CB1BBEF4E4@vpnc.org> <496EFA88-BA70-460B-BFB2-69B2C7BC905D@apnic.net> <4540A279-4A37-4245-AE61-BEE5342E3F72@vpnc.org> <20180202075530.Horde.UWaxe9eenZ7PyxWYFHCFGdN@andreasschulze.de> <e8ac7bd0-26e6-cf97-e2ef-0ead50dc18ce@nic.cz> <88E7D27C-048E-44CB-B317-C892EA603D31@isc.org>
From: Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Organization: CZ.NIC
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <0c2a4a38-49d7-2b46-1ac8-1dda0812e217@nic.cz>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 10:41:43 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <88E7D27C-048E-44CB-B317-C892EA603D31@isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/fWzgmkk8mM_8O-ndSK8ITQesRYA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.
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: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:41:49 -0000
On 2.2.2018 09:32, Mark Andrews wrote: > This isn’t about whether name servers load A records with non LDH names > as they all can. > > The real question is do the name lookup api’s in the web browsers barf > on non IDN, non LDH names since that is the mechanism being proposed > for people to test this. Sure. Given that MS AD users underscore A records in its integrated DNS server (at least in older versions), it is going to work with DNS resolver distributed with Windows. This covers 99 % of clients which can potentially be target of potential ad campaign. So, now, we need to test browsers... Talk is cheap, let's get hands dirty! I just tested Firefox 58.0.1 on Fedora 27 URL http://_test.example Result: The Firefox under test issued DNS queries _test.example. A _test.example. AAAA just fine. nsswitch.conf: hosts: files mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] dns myhostnam I do not have other desktop system at hand, so I will defer other experiments to others. Please do experiments and report your results. Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC > Mark > >> On 2 Feb 2018, at 6:50 pm, Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> wrote: >> >> On 2.2.2018 07:55, A. Schulze wrote> Paul Hoffman: >>>> My preference is #1 because, in general, a label starting with _ has >>>> been meant for infrastructure, and that's what these labels are. >>>> Others might like #2 so they don't have to add configuration to BIND >>>> (and maybe other authoritative servers). >>> >>> just checked, my NSD and POWERDNS serve A record for _foo.examle. >>> without noise... >>> so: #1 >> >> For the record, I also like more the underscore variant (#1 above). >> >> BIND spits a warning about it and I like it. After all, this whole KSK >> sentinel bussiness is quite specialized thing to do and should be done >> only by people who know what they are doing, so warning is appropriate. >> >> After all, what is your guess about number of zones containing such >> names? 10? 20 zones globally? I cannot see more, and most likely vast >> majority of people who would like to create such zones is following this >> dicussion. >> >> Please do not overcomplicate things. The technology seems okay to me. >> (I've implemented it including tests, see Knot Resolver 2.0.0.) >> Could we polish the text and publish it, pretty please? >> >> >> (BTW I have seen underscore names with A records in Microsoft Active >> Direcotry DNS years ago, so this is not the first time _ A is used.) >> >> -- >> Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC
- [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel. Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… william manning
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Ralph Dolmans
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Geoff Huston
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Geoff Huston
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… A. Schulze
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Geoff Huston
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Vladimír Čunát
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Geoff Huston
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… A. Schulze
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Patrick Mevzek
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… joel jaeggli
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Benno Overeinder
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Bob Harold
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Matt Larson
- Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of senti… Geoff Huston
- [DNSOP] Risk of using underscores for sentinel (W… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Risk of using underscores for sentine… Vladimír Čunát