Re: [DNSOP] old arguments unrelated to SRV-related _underscore registry (was Re: Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf)
Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 01 March 2016 23:37 UTC
Return-Path: <marka@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 78F2D1B4366 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:37:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 p8Y4zGa_4UAJ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:37:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB44B1B4346 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:37:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C6621FCAB3; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 23:37:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AFE61600BB; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 23:37:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EFD31600BA; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 23:37:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 0dSZsIAEFjGL; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 23:37:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c110-21-49-25.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [110.21.49.25]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E575D160042; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 23:37:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C0E438E1E9; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:37:35 +1100 (EST)
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20160301165633.71260.qmail@ary.lan> <56D5CA62.1030206@bellis.me.uk> <CAMm+LwjJ0xe2wDW98JHJfV5jV3xTeuMNguU=rkqrZMzmei2iHA@mail.gmail.com> <20160301225138.53AFB438DCC1@rock.dv.isc.org> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1603011813560.36649@ary.lan>
In-reply-to: Your message of "01 Mar 2016 18:15:22 -0500." <alpine.OSX.2.11.1603011813560.36649@ary.lan>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:37:35 +1100
Message-Id: <20160301233735.A4C0E438E1E9@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/tfp6SNtGexXtfn-4bvDEfU67Wts>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] old arguments unrelated to SRV-related _underscore registry (was Re: Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attrleaf)
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: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 23:37:45 -0000
In message <alpine.OSX.2.11.1603011813560.36649@ary.lan>, "John R Levine" writes: > >> The NDR record is deliberately free format because changing DNS > >> servers is HARD, no really it is ridiculously hard with a ten year > >> lag. Which is of course why we won't use a new record at all: > > > > Really? We have rpm's of new versions of named supplied within > > hours of ISC's public announcements of new named releases. I'm > > sure there are similar announcements for other nameserver vendors. > > I suppose I could say web based configuration crudware a few dozen more > times, but I doubt it would sink in any more than it has before. > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. Look at https://ednscomp.isc.org/compliance/summary.html. The EDNS COOKIE code point was only allocated in July. You have TLD operators and Alex top 1000 operators supporting it and we don't yet have the RFC out the door. Named's support in BIND 9.10.3 requires the nameserver builder to turn it on at configure time unless you are running it on Windows where it is on by default. [ I've heard one of the Linux vendors turns it on at compile time. ] It will be on by default in BIND 9.11.0. Slowness in supporting new types is not the problem of nameserver vendors. Support for routine extensions to the DNS actually gets done in a timely manner. Universal support takes a long time (which you can also see in those graphs) but you don't need universal support for new types. You need a resolver that can perform the lookup if you want to use the new type and the ability to publish the record. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
- [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-attr… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-… John Levine
- [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was Re:… Dave Crocker
- [DNSOP] comments ( was Re: Call for Adoption: dra… Dave Crocker
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] comments ( was Re: Call for Adoption:… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-… joel jaeggli
- Re: [DNSOP] comments ( was Re: Call for Adoption:… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Dave Crocker
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Dave Crocker
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] old arguments unrelated to SRV-relate… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] old arguments unrelated to SRV-relate… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] old arguments unrelated to SRV-relate… Jared Mauch
- Re: [DNSOP] old arguments unrelated to SRV-relate… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [DNSOP] old arguments unrelated to SRV-relate… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-crocker-dns-… Dave Crocker
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [DNSOP] SRV-related _underscore registry (was… Phillip Hallam-Baker