Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 20 July 2017 15:54 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 3F4B1131D06 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=DZl3VhId; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=LfZkyc4n
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 GVm0jotpaKTE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:53:58 -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 D9CD0131C73 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 39654 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2017 15:53:47 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=9ae4.5970d20b.k1707; bh=SvCRiIdgD5Wwrf36aiIODqcl2l7VNPx0uhAuF8qm0w8=; b=DZl3VhIdG91aIxXMAeXy4C8fB2yExkhwBcxt+kDs+dt9fVPFHdEPyCST5CIAl4q/XQV7Wlxd5Rvq9xWRsrkM0Sq4vXIUsaIifDYq3vA7hleJ1S0rFUspUgu37Xrm8tq5ATDg+CkgauLEmNqf+vDPTb/61TcLBS69ACyCWFE9q2CbTYtODXhOcyMW/Byvw3O2GrJpvMGhg9QFjIqn2iuZ61PYE7g3tUWb4mjnf1qTmVlFM1uLdGAoobCRw5BTj4tv
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=9ae4.5970d20b.k1707; bh=SvCRiIdgD5Wwrf36aiIODqcl2l7VNPx0uhAuF8qm0w8=; b=LfZkyc4nhwzVHOvQZ/r52C7pjCj1Ce9lx1mrZNw87U20dxSh2pb0pkJa+2RAz1DmdTy2Uu4IRKoUIdHptpSdViuQepRLNBXwEp5QT/Arz47ReZ5XF0njYK/GCIBC3jr+B7i7EdBbC/gvTTxHHdSVoXT0tD0KFAOGcl02rrBQDPelPOrAh1kwx835hIxubRr1AzpP+cod9tngVYqL0dX1oL5jSWjIJxDtBKTLpBeirnjWPLLsXGsH8jpC56Zed0mb
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 20 Jul 2017 15:53:47 -0000
Date: 20 Jul 2017 17:53:46 +0200
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1707201752240.5469@dhcp-9d40.meeting.ietf.org>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, paul@nohats.ca
In-Reply-To: <20170720152559.GD22702@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1707190347390.10419@ns0.nohats.ca> <20170719215749.2241.qmail@ary.lan> <20170720152559.GD22702@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/g1zwr63lfHSo7kRPiAoxjQsszzQ>
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: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:54:00 -0000

> That's why I don't share the fears about BULK: you cannot easily
> deploy a new feature that will require a change in the resolvers,
> because you don't know all the resolvers, and cannot change them even
> if you know they are too old. But your secondaries are only a small
> set of carefully chosen servers, and you have your say.

I hear otherwise from people who run big DNS farms.  It's common to use 
multiple secondary providers, and it's hard to tell who's running what 
server software.  I also note that it took about a decade before people 
felt comfortable using DNAMEs.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly