Re: [dnsext] we need help to make names the same, was draft-yao-dnsext-identical-resolution-02 comment

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Thu, 17 February 2011 02:36 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2506A3A6DB2; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:36:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 434A83A6DB2 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:36:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
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 NLONj2dY5YfE for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:36:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4A63A6CE5 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:36:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2486D5F98F3; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 02:36:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (drugs.dv.isc.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:ea06:88ff:fef3:4f9c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B45D2216C1E; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 02:36:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB105A41C29; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:36:45 +1100 (EST)
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <4D5B5E81.1050602@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <20110216073338.7251.qmail@joyce.lan> <F21692535B1A478F95D9E3AA048E8037@ics.forth.gr> <20110216165921.GW96213@shinkuro.com> <3B90ED2E-980D-4B01-889F-447D66D0B58D@insensate.co.uk><20110216174011.GZ96213@shinkuro.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:40:12 CDT." <20110216174011.GZ96213@shinkuro.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:36:45 +1100
Message-Id: <20110217023645.DB105A41C29@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] we need help to make names the same, was draft-yao-dnsext-identical-resolution-02 comment
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

In message <20110216174011.GZ96213@shinkuro.com>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 05:23:33PM +0000, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
> 
> > Almost all registries will have rules on bundling and mapping.
> 
> I just want to be clear what you mean by "registries" there.  Remember
> that, formally, every zone cut comes with a registry responsible for
> it.
> 
> If what you mean is "big TLD registries", then I'll concede the point.
> But we're not the DNS Extensions for TLDs WG.  We're responsible for
> the protocol all the way down.
> 
> I fully agree that we're not required to solve _every_ case: we can't.
> But we do have to solve enough of a problem to really make a
> difference.
> 
> This is why the SMTP and web server issues are such a big deal.  If we
> solve the problem that you only have to maintain one tree in the DNS,
> and everything else "just works", that is a completely meaningless
> victory if you nevertheless have to maintain all your SMTP and web
> servers by hand and keep them up to date about the aliases.  The work
> to keep the DNS in sync here is trivial compared to everything else.
> 
> > If I can count the number of "shadows" with my fingers, that seems to ME to
>  be a tad
> > different from millions of potential domains.
> 
> So how many shadows is the right number?  The final sigma case is
> trivial. But the tonos case is not; it requires a large number of
> alternatives.  We heard "tens of alternatives".  But of course, that's
> tens of alternatives _in every level_.  If you have four levels deep
> and 10 each, then that's 40 possible alternatives for one FQDN.

Does one have to support mixed tonos?   With and without rather than
on a per character basis?  I don't know as I don't write Greek.

> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@shinkuro.com
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext