Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-01.txt
Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> Sat, 20 February 2021 13:03 UTC
Return-Path: <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.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 8FCC33A1335 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 05:03:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 AwlkkwgByOjd for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 05:03:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx3.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 BA19F3A1333 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 05:03:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imap.open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [84.81.54.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx3.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 406DD6A23B; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 14:03:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from plato ([84.81.54.175]) by imap.open-xchange.com with ESMTPSA id O6Q8DpcIMWDpJwAA3c6Kzw (envelope-from <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>); Sat, 20 Feb 2021 14:03:19 +0100
Message-ID: <f3de0f8a09c55809641f38e83b7026ad5f184b92.camel@powerdns.com>
From: Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 14:03:18 +0100
In-Reply-To: <YDArzan+A2Ikkn0U@vinny.peecee3.com>
References: <160712121645.11485.9271273951179383921@ietfa.amsl.com> <eb84cf94-e3f2-fef0-8bb0-8bab093177db@nlnetlabs.nl> <20210219.184501.817904560961969387.he@uninett.no> <YDArzan+A2Ikkn0U@vinny.peecee3.com>
Organization: PowerDNS.COM B.V.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5-1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/jtsiVy8721u_9Hr4dXyTNSRLpyM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 13:03:26 -0000
Hello, On Fri, 2021-02-19 at 13:21 -0800, cpolish@surewest.net wrote: > On 2021-02-19 18:45, Havard Eidnes wrote: > > However, "burning" a new RR just for this purpose seems to me to > > not be necessary, so I favour the scheme in 5.6 using a TXT > > record instead. > > My reading of RFC 5507 "Design Choices When Expanding the DNS" > §6 ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5507#section-6 ): > > ... of all the alternate solutions, the "obvious" approach of using > TXT Resource Records for arbitrary names is almost certainly the > worst ... > > seems to favor "burning" a new RR "just for this purpose". > While RFC 5507 is informational, it does consider the general > problem (new RR vs. TXT) in some detail. 5507 is an absolutely excellent document, that cannot be summarised by its conclusion. In this case, it turns out that most of the reasons given in the full text, leading up to the 'burn an RRtype' conclusion, do not really apply to catalog zones. We do not have wildcards, and we do not have UDP message size constraints, the zones will not be queried by random tools that might have unrelated semantics. I'm not arguing that catalog zones -should- use TXT for everything (because that would be terrible); but the firmess of 5507's conclusion does not fully apply here. Kind regards, -- Peter van Dijk PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/
- [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-… internet-drafts
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-cata… Willem Toorop
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-cata… Havard Eidnes
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-cata… cpolish
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-cata… Peter van Dijk