Re: [DNSOP] WGLC: "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"

bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com Sat, 29 March 2008 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dnsop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD00E3A6E04; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.707
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Z9-hrZkNB-N; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38A23A6921; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E59793A6965 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6mGviGPGbvOx for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vacation.karoshi.com (unknown [IPv6:2002:c620:68b:0:230:48ff:fe11:220a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F583A6805 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from karoshi.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by vacation.karoshi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2TNHTWG030565; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:17:32 GMT
Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by karoshi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id m2TNHRlU030564; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:17:27 GMT
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:17:27 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Robert Story <rstory@sparta.com>
Message-ID: <20080329231727.GA30381@vacation.karoshi.com.>
References: <20080314034500.GE7553@x27.adm.denic.de> <m2hceqlbzy.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org> <20080329182353.5d30ef3f@spx.vb.futz.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080329182353.5d30ef3f@spx.vb.futz.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC: "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org

I'm going to ask this question here too..  are we talking about the DNS
or are we talking about an applications use of data published in the DNS?

i see this draft in the context of the historical DNS ... it is a mapping
service,  a name to an address AND an address to a name.  the mapping service
is OPTIONAL ... the Internet does not now (and should NEVER) depend on this
service being available for any other service to work.

I think a key point here is that -reciprocity- is and should be highly valued
feature of DNS provisioning.

that said, if one provisions mapping in one direction, it should also be
provided in the other.  

e.g.  

	label1 == address1  implies   address1 == label1

so, if it is legal to have this construct:

	label == address1
	      == address2
	      ...
	      == addressN

then this construct should also be legal:

	address == name1
	    	== name2
		...
		== nameN

what we have is a mess....

	label1 == address1918
	address1918 == lable8

which, while technicallu legal, violates the spirit of the 
lema posited above, as does;

	label35 == address1918
	and address1918 has no matching label.


we now return you to your SMTP coloured discussion.

--bill
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop