IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] My "toxic" remark at the mic today

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Fri, 06 November 2015 06:10 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39161A8949 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 22:10:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.261
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 SsfFfnD9GksU for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 22:10:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E45891A8934 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 22:10:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [193.11.192.98] (w193-11-192-98.eduroam.sunet.se [193.11.192.98]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5673F1FDE0; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 07:10:12 +0100 (CET)
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 07:10:11 +0100
Message-ID: <90A15CB0-C8C4-46E1-9E0E-DB249C61A8F1@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <20151105105009.53009.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <20151105105009.53009.qmail@ary.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_7AB4FDA2-B450-42E4-8092-2EA01820E9C2_="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.3r5164)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/fsXZ1hExfFXFUEJx9Fcr0Ww7cN0>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] My "toxic" remark at the mic today
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 06 Nov 2015 06:10:15 -0000

On 5 Nov 2015, at 11:50, John Levine wrote:

> I'm not sure how toxic it is, but I agree that we are unlikely to have
> anything useful to say on the topic.

Speaking personally, I do not see DNAME toxic, but the question has almost always been:

- Whether clients do handle DNAME correctly
- How to resolve an interest for having DNAME "work" for the zone apex itself

I think the 2nd of these is a non-issue if "we" do have the assumption data in TLDs are "delegation only", which I do know is not true for all TLDs, but it is still what i personally think is the best to do.

   Patrik

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status