From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Message-Id: <7262A449-1171-49E8-BDF6-69601DB034EE@hopcount.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_BF8ABD48-9095-45D2-BF3C-0D1092B16060";
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 18:17:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <ybl5zdg4po9.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>,
 dnsop-chairs <dnsop-chairs@ietf.org>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
References: <CADyWQ+FLrTy0gy8iCyAPsDpiumDNQHX4TGPni43ThA=W3fmZew@mail.gmail.com>
 <EB400743-8B25-45DA-B4BD-5B27F47AE9E3@hopcount.ca>
 <ybl5zdg4po9.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/qhExpGgIIVlsa7zosLBhOdcjaqY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-pwouters-powerbind
Precedence: list


--Apple-Mail=_BF8ABD48-9095-45D2-BF3C-0D1092B16060
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

Hi Wes.

On 30 Apr 2020, at 17:41, Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:

> I've just pushed the -04 version of the draft that has a fairly major
> overhaul of the problem statement.  I'd appreciate if it helps clarify
> the technical reasons why deployment of the bit would be beneficial in
> ways that are unrelated to contractual type controls.  I'll include =
the
> first three sections below, which are the parts that really changed.

Thanks! It's on the list :-)

>> Perhaps more substantially, but with more rapid oscillation of hands,
>> I am concerned that this draft, if adopted, will gain legitimacy in
>> policy circles where it might actually do damage.
>=20
> I can't speculate whether zones would be under increased market =
pressure
> for a DNS feature you clearly indicate might be desired.  I find this
> statement that "this looks too helpful to some people; let's not do =
it"
> fascinating :-)

Well, no. I was really concerned that it would be of no help at all =
whilst simultaneously sounding tremendously necessary ("transparency!"), =
and that it might have collateral damage.

>> An example might be where there is contractual or market pressure to
>> require it for TLDs where its effect might be to cause suppressed
>> orphan glue to break otherwise functional delegations.
>=20
> I'd love to see some registration point cases where this technique =
would
> cause harm.

Well, for example there are some 28,000 examples of orphan glue in the =
ORG zone. There are about 93,000 across all gTLDs. I haven't analysed =
these orphan glue records in any useful detail (that's on the list, too =
:-) but I'm wary of assuming that they could all be safely suppressed =
without harming any other delegation.

Anyway, thanks for the edits; I will send comments back to the list when =
I've had a chance to read them thoroughly.


Joe

--Apple-Mail=_BF8ABD48-9095-45D2-BF3C-0D1092B16060
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EARECAB0WIQSAt40QkiztAcvphdg0jwy9hlI6LAUCXqtOfQAKCRA0jwy9hlI6
LJDiAJ97+JSB7CSA/W25btp6uwShn2O7qwCgw+ri3Wk89neb9wSyxpCMkVCIPcY=
=l1vb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_BF8ABD48-9095-45D2-BF3C-0D1092B16060--