[DNSOP] draft-sullivan-dns-class-useless (was Re: new DNS classes)

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 05 July 2017 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E4B12EC0B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 08:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=OKLNA/dB; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=AkdLxzoL
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id udnHKC3I3b1d for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 08:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CF2A12EB8E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 08:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F67C0354 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:15:35 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1499267735; bh=1MzIHcGZrbTVHIoD8NjgRhRqEoe+awCiIstK6CsOuFo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=OKLNA/dBzOyJMkeMYLV8iq+lCgPPSUERFKdqHl2RHP1haAz2TsQQETv9dgrEnbOP7 Jlq/MMnYHWDAJgPEaNEYuMP/XuZ8dknRkmW9y6WswylRXbxSNxpaupsVbCvuTC6nXE vzUyC8oxHCvDTlxlfmiJgJY5QCeY2//3TtpeTi3g=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m8lGfbqUXB1J for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:15:34 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 11:15:36 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1499267734; bh=1MzIHcGZrbTVHIoD8NjgRhRqEoe+awCiIstK6CsOuFo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=AkdLxzoLHkHc0ku9quoyBbFh7yyx30a/tP6pkNsolKXd0EvtfWDCrlJurjuQt1VnF ojTpOQ4nmzVaMEMBH/5ySp+bofhD2WXJLhzO6JkakZJumu+qNRBbOSiwqM6l/fjuAb VW/AH0UvPQVRdnt0syPBGki6DeB7BN4UKEJYtiRk=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170705151536.5qqdricrsfx73jcr@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <m2shicxr0h.wl-randy@psg.com> <A70FD34B-000A-4748-B1B2-BF6DF66C7D6C@fugue.com> <m2podgxq97.wl-randy@psg.com> <5F120298-CD66-4CB6-9DC5-0C5DF6F02CC7@fugue.com> <CACfw2hhx+-Z=7ZnnaOkToc+Bd7aKDpBFt+nFUxkt9sKqLn4D8Q@mail.gmail.com> <2DF1AFC7-643B-4610-8EB8-0616D3D0B024@fugue.com> <595BD53E.60701@redbarn.org> <E739C1CB-E60E-4B4B-99CF-1E6C68CB6926@rfc1035.com> <7DCA3DAF1993A2E66915D0DD@JcK-HP5.jck.com> <20170704233315.AAA7D7D84127@rock.dv.isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170704233315.AAA7D7D84127@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/y4yebbnFickRAKnQpeooLkclecY>
Subject: [DNSOP] draft-sullivan-dns-class-useless (was Re: new DNS classes)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 15:15:38 -0000

Hi Mark,

On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:33:15AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> draft-sullivan-dns-class-useless has lots provably invalid assumptions
> in it that it is worthless in determining if new classes could be
> deployed.

What are the "lots of provably invalid assumptions in it"?  As far as
I know, I incorporated changes that were an attempt to address
comments you sent me; perhaps I didn't understand you at the time.
But this is the first time I've ever heard about provably invalid

Anyway, I abandoned the effort because it became clear to me that
there wasn't going to be any consensus around this: there were too
many people too wedded to keeping classes around despite the obvious
problem that they haven't actually been used when the obvious
opportunities arose.

I cheerfully predict that the DNS will be replaced before we ever have
a significant deployment of a class that even remotely rivals the
deployment of IN.  But I'm not going to waste a lot of effort trying
to forge a consensus about that.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan