Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Have some class?
Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Mon, 06 July 2015 06:48 UTC
Return-Path: <each@isc.org>
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 2105F1A8A61 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 23:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 YZK7VRQQ753U for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 23:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85F811A1B24 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 23:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C38FF1FCA9D; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 06:48:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id 88004216C57; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 06:48:18 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 06:48:18 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Message-ID: <20150706064818.GB6350@isc.org>
References: <5599A3CA.4060602@bellis.me.uk> <20150705171605.GA85633@isc.org> <20150706020154.GF49926@mx2.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150706020154.GF49926@mx2.yitter.info>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/mmjUjuY6h8ROYxnxtkxgm3sDlHM>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Have some class?
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: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 06:48:24 -0000
On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 10:01:55PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Since the RDATA for a CNAME or DNAME is another point in the tree, the > above convention would suggest in fact that you _can't_ point to a > different alias (or else, we'd get a very unusual meaning of the terms > "parallel" and "same"). The remark prefaced with "by convention" doesn't strike me as particularly definitive. There's no .bind TLD in class IN, yet version.bind/CHAOS exists in many DNS servers, therefore the namespaces aren't actually parallel or the same, whatever the authors may have expected to happen at the time 1034 was written. > If all we want is a convention for instructing the local resolver, > repurposing classes seems like a lot of work. After all, apparently > Bonjour and Tor -- and for that matter, DKIM -- are able to figure > this out by grovelling through magic labels in the owner name. It's > filthy, but the code all shiped ages ago. Point taken, but the problem we're facing is magic special-purpose labels potentially being repurposed in the global DNS and thus becoming ambiguous. Allocating class ONION, class MDNS, etc, for things like this may actually turn out to be less trouble in the long run than ensuring that ICANN never sells anybody a TLD called .onion. -- Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… Hugo Maxwell Connery
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… Hugo Maxwell Connery
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… manning
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… Hugo Maxwell Connery
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… manning
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… manning
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… Robert Edmonds
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… manning
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… Robert Edmonds
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… manning
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… Robert Edmonds
- Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a requ… manning
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… manning
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… manning
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Hugo Maxwell Connery
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… manning
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… joel jaeggli
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… manning
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… manning
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Paul Ferguson
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Steve Crocker
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Andrew Sullivan
- [DNSOP] Top level names -- precision re categorie… Steve Crocker
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Steve Crocker
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… P Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… P Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Steve Crocker
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… manning
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Hav… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Top level names -- precision re categ… Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: [DNSOP] Top level names -- precision re categ… Steve Crocker