Re: [DNSOP] BULK RR as optional feature

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Wed, 29 March 2017 00:25 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.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 D16BA126BFD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 C_YDNh3psmuA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x229.google.com (mail-it0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6234E126579 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x229.google.com with SMTP id y18so40374577itc.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UZ5h3NHxMgjQSANrYEj0Osod5YHPdPXBgrbvcyI0jX4=; b=F94nfqLD1q6lF7WCFR56zfBc5LfYEcNKk61uD0+YvWC71jW9tuUcrsocpAGcM39QUM MrtA0RK2qkgGOepEXlnZS30yNFyI13LEGnxRh36Hd/D5XSLULGHOdjIhSApebuEGf1TA T7bQWnXuAnYpqwjxZnHI0/n8H4+0Ej24s8i7fUklOQSvbH00tFpyBB/d2jvmq0Bv7YUS nt85FGOKLdGJaBRaGpXi6nM6jJleyv6KsUJr5p/HXVCEUhr/uvvv+Z1A4RbThvakkKpE xkaQKtoVCtrIrRsn4jWgghKvzpme/O1un1PtBGRWdoJICPlo6uNxHNp8onCm6zJO4w6j g8KQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UZ5h3NHxMgjQSANrYEj0Osod5YHPdPXBgrbvcyI0jX4=; b=QaFm/dOJZpxMBLvwAkSVP56ByOmg3nXopIfQQxFT66xfcSoW+ZBLIaO0/py6Jb9/FO vK3B4lrK+Eq/So+OHTT1pJCssh7ENs2IXXoFPzZRH6B4uRZbfnbgaYLVLxqx1/IPng86 +MMuLfcSUEALtxz8+tU0oqLOy6goEslTomax+ZvehlLAICwsjpprb4WOqAjqK3XUaYPu cHJFyxxilNKOyEogUJyFZqHVc1fRQsOjVEsbWgMg45b2O9LhRLjugamMzZ5Q/g+JqsBu 5RhpZpZk4IJN+Tk9rSZOUA0XJszyJfQvkBlUhtNz27v8WdtR/NkDYUToM5mphPe1TzLC eyiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0KD6ZeB2UO0Hg49j8hN7hOpu9/jpj0PEYZYLBx5K4p8T6BLHN7RKwFJR7fxQpJCusKDaVtx1RjcwJZgg==
X-Received: by 10.107.8.39 with SMTP id 39mr29075327ioi.189.1490747137786; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.16.21 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170328183156.2467.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <20170328183156.2467.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:25:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEGWJLz-RinMPGkfp3gOfBxcagxhWgk0UMbXAELCnnE3Jg@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: "<dnsop@ietf.org>" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/kd4-K7DL119w5HPvtQrPOe1Pn5A>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] BULK RR as optional feature
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:25:40 -0000

Wouldn't a BULK RR ignorant DNS server just store the BULK RR as opaque data?

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com


On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:31 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> At yesterday's session, Tale confirmed that since BULK adds so much
> new special purpose complexity to DNS servers, the plan is that
> support for it will be optional.
>
> An optional RRTYPE with extra semantics introduces some new
> compatibility problems.  What happens if a server that doesn't support
> BULK tries to load a local zone file with a BULK record.  Does it
> reject the whole file, ignore the record, or something else?  What if
> such a server receives BULK by AXFR?  By IXFR?  What if one shows up
> in a cache from a buggy authoritative server?  In all of these cases,
> the current RFC 3597 behavior will just return the BULK record which
> seems wrong.
>
> I continue to think that this kind of feature belongs in special
> purpose DNS servers, not in the core DNS.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop