Re: [DNSOP] Do we need new draft that recommends number limits ?
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 12 March 2024 16:46 UTC
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 64C78C14F690 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.159
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.159 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b="MYKwffLC"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b="CsyAuo/h"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SSHM7mPlPMAL for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 886C6C14E513 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 24453 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2024 16:46:15 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=5f8165f086d7.k2403; bh=Fk7LFegtgR6frDNXdXo37Cfmy7u16HK1C+2baViTYxY=; b=MYKwffLCbkoXcKgRdT8nmFOHmeA6t4Inaai58NAmVZWnLfdll1PNkWpvmKpq166FudpKJvMhTPVBIaZZPxgktdQA49hCwb0pTzuqpSiXGL8vFsvi9xJxu4ocCQn5qZ142+ZHGUjSxhUZGELLusnlE0vxhWgwJvkwJfGLDKc1igSI9gQoLIpl6d81OaS41IIpNwoiM8he3hV2ASqWf70mPlIntZCTS+wM/3z8GUGxNlEfl9QVGafXIl3McIYnxpv3T36rQYk4sJXIBMpc0AYqrVam8/y5x2sv5Xu1p8ingHtC03Ym2VODZFuAD2cE+DB/iUjMIBLNVu+mm2YSzr6lcw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=5f8165f086d7.k2403; bh=Fk7LFegtgR6frDNXdXo37Cfmy7u16HK1C+2baViTYxY=; b=CsyAuo/h36C+UTmnBbrFu1677fOh2dKr5rtKq/H1Jh7bb42QwCsrPZ6Y+OS7oRbLoWwr44SAWzyPgrpF2PKyMJxJNCDinCxYR35lhVS0kQijo8vdR6X9wpjzXiNTVxkBVfPKNmYAcb4hxY7bQKuz9sDQAKx3pWmpMQZVcVnUth8mfpwUv7gEeAxYqocvCUbJeHxbVqECnnDCuaW3+rDRWG7QNj9fpYi6U+tpI+nKg4kd6NG4WccqWsm5t40l6xjCrm/Y1vCVvj+jQLTnsznFAhmJxrd4j6MIsV4iDMwQyz3yuKs5Oi+Gj0ZcH/3HAHz0+Fho8lEZKCdwha7MGyLyHw==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD) via TCP6; 12 Mar 2024 16:46:14 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 36BF88504657; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:46:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:46:13 -0400
Message-Id: <20240312164614.36BF88504657@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: paul@redbarn.org
In-Reply-To: <90fed16b-a136-4c81-919d-7a4d4ba068bc@redbarn.org>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/sdkZA1hNCxFZwTjyV51f351-Szg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Do we need new draft that recommends number limits ?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:46:22 -0000
It appears that Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- ><<Rather than writing a draft for each limitation, > >I think it would be better to compile them all into one draft.>> I agree a draft describing the places where DNS evaluators should set limits would be a good idea. I am considerably less enthusastic about specific limits, since the use of the DNS has evolved a lot and some things that may bave seemed excessive back in the day are now routine. The obvious example is CNAME chains. In 1034/1035 the only use contemplated for CNAME was temporary forwarding when a host name changed, and for that use, chained CNAMEs made no sense. Now they delegate authority to different points of control in many different ways. For applications like CDNs, you need two or three link CNAME chains and nobody appears to find that a problem. R's, John
- [DNSOP] Do we need new draft that recommends numb… Kazunori Fujiwara
- Re: [DNSOP] Do we need new draft that recommends … Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Do we need new draft that recommends … John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Do we need new draft that recommends … Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Do we need new draft that recommends … Mark Delany
- Re: [DNSOP] Do we need new draft that recommends … John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Do we need new draft that recom… Edward Lewis