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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 05 November 2015 04:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65FC1A90D8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:47:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VomZH6Of07VI for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:47:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 609F61A90D3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:47:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D96610685 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 04:47:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zv33pcwuQklL for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 04:47:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (t20010c400000302420b3bb83cb77fa03.v6.meeting.ietf94.jp [IPv6:2001:c40:0:3024:20b3:bb83:cb77:fa03]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1272B105E6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 04:47:32 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 23:47:29 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20151105044728.GE4292@mx2.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/jOi_3HNnyfYiiQJsNICcZYyIClU>
Subject: [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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 04:47:35 -0000


Today I went to the mic in response to Stéphane's question about DNAME
in the root zone.  I gather the point I was trying to make wasn't clear.

What I understood Stéphane to be saying was that the IETF ought to
take a position on whether it'd be a good idea to put a DNAME record
into the root zone.  This is the thing I think would be toxic.  I
don't believe we should have any opinion at all about what stuff
should go into the root zone (though I can imagine having an idea
about what stuff _should not_).

I don't think there's a problem with the WG saying that there isn't a
problem putting records of this or that type into the root.  If that's
all the document was intended to say, I guess I wouldn't care.  Is
there a document that says not to put such a record into the root,
however?  If not, why should DNSOP say anything about this?  It seems
like a job for SSAC to me.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan