IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 10 September 2018 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 66BD0130E94 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 05:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=cWKTRFi0; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=b8WLeN/M
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 62jv0xchxS_7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 05:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B5C7127B92 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 05:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DBA5BD156 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 12:55:36 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1536584136; bh=Z5udr+WLPDVnUwkHfjQLSMSxy0ECulAu3IPlGb8UOlc=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=cWKTRFi0IxI4J+pSqJuC3vP16hZ9/fTZ6Qwm/XMQE7xTjbUHL78OXnv1USlA8L+O0 yHHJgIPavlRV3AV2RHNQGokw+cZjac93okN3lwsfcg7HOfnJLTofLuw54BmJ2m+xJM Hsu9Oj7xVQBYogNZR3y0s7n1SAqDwgdWDUtal4RA=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oJ9MsTvDd1CL for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 12:55:34 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:55:33 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1536584134; bh=Z5udr+WLPDVnUwkHfjQLSMSxy0ECulAu3IPlGb8UOlc=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=b8WLeN/MsaMDVWagElT1mg/En2YXCDD9xrkpgmxUZ9Szr/u2oNUTDp4IogJQivKAX sJfxp/HZFq/e+BX/Xl+BBRyJ4Rl0ZwWFHzEOgWVzmV3NjNRMNt8YWtUr9sM+FLZKJN pVFLG8mS5Gj2lP0LK01HDrM7hRysNmyJgIupPz/8=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180910125533.a2wkwdci3won7shg@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <4AA8656A-7D2F-4584-B84D-47E97483CCC2@gmail.com> <5B8D548E.5080205@redbarn.org> <30BF3D0E-1EE9-4310-ACCB-413E019B6D93@isc.org> <CANeU+ZDMLxpS1VLCunM6DRmkLqtt521Q+QSHwdhvMZ-+eGqSMA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CANeU+ZDMLxpS1VLCunM6DRmkLqtt521Q+QSHwdhvMZ-+eGqSMA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nVLiBC1tb07LDAVi7-dknpWP3Mw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft
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: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 12:55:40 -0000

Dear colleagues,

On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 12:29:30AM -0400, StJohns, Michael wrote:
> Actually, 5.2 suggests that a master  file (not zone) should contain a
> single class and single SOA record.  That’s not the same thing as limiting
> a zone to a single class AFAICT.

I believe it is the same thing, because classes divide the database
which means that they are a division point among zones.

I will note that I attempted a little while ago to explore this space
more completely, but nobody liked my idea of effectively closing the
class registry.  See
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sullivan-dns-class-useless-03.  If
someone wanted to pick up that document, I wouldn't discourage them
(but I don't think I have time any more to work on it).

I agree with Paul Vixie that classes were never defined well enough to
be made to work properly, at least at Internet scale.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email