IETF Logo Mail Archive

[e2md] Stupid DNS tricks

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Mon, 17 May 2010 11:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Original-To: e2md@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: e2md@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3563D3A68C2 for <e2md@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2010 04:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.092
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.093, BAYES_50=0.001]
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 1zgFP7bnYKcb for <e2md@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2010 04:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hutch.rfc1035.com (router.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E533628C0FF for <e2md@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2010 04:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jim) by hutch.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 90DEC1542837; Mon, 17 May 2010 12:50:07 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <37E73C40-D6B9-46E3-BF79-6114613EE591@rfc1035.com>
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
To: Lawrence Conroy <lconroy@insensate.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <48DEDD4A-473D-448B-A02B-1D458CD0E30B@insensate.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 12:50:06 +0100
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1005131459070.24552@softronics.hoeneisen.ch> <002f01caf2ac$f69161a0$e3b424e0$@us> <4BED5842.4020101@nic.at> <00a901caf388$fe6eda60$fb4c8f20$@us> <20100515203307.GB17608@nic.at> <48DEDD4A-473D-448B-A02B-1D458CD0E30B@insensate.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: "'E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list'" <e2md@ietf.org>, Otmar Lendl <lendl@nic.at>
Subject: [e2md] Stupid DNS tricks
X-BeenThere: e2md@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "E.164 To MetaData \(E2MD\) BOF discussion list" <e2md.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md>, <mailto:e2md-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/e2md>
List-Post: <mailto:e2md@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:e2md-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md>, <mailto:e2md-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 11:56:12 -0000

On 16 May 2010, at 12:39, Lawrence Conroy wrote:

> Providing different answers based on who's asking is indeed not the
> way that DNS servers according to 1034/1035 are supposed to act.
> Perhaps one should raise that with OpenDNS & Google?

This isn't our problem and we should keep well out of it. FWIW, there  
has been a discussion about Stupid DNS Tricks (tm) on dnsop and it  
doesn't seem to be going anywhere. The web content providers who want  
this stuff appear to be unable to convince the WG that their ideas are  
sound or worthwhile. These schemes will also lose big time when/if  
they sign their zones.

Followups and replies to dnsop@ietf.org. Thanks.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email