Re: [dnsext] the same in old days, was making names the same NEED protocol changes?

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Sun, 27 February 2011 19:59 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 EE05E3A67D6; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:59:16 -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 F2D323A67D6 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:59:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.78
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.78 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.419, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, 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 tFuR6qsi3tsG for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:59:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B333A67C1 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:59:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 21885 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2011 20:00:11 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=557c.4d6aad4b.k1102; i=johnl@submit.iecc.com; bh=2W0iCZhbKNZiRXsuWsjW6HkrEC56WwdOUJkz0eGp+jc=; b=jAn1qRErgg4HtMMxGzrpgdKdHXqDo1tV8bP1ayJ7FQO2bJswUkNqUiKso8Qv58Q264MLGCNHe2iOwne/caUNBxF5I3VEKAhEG+VSlJajMsRdf29AQXy0B14kcldAF9UEPT2/8Fa+MBJHxODuRd77VYfhaO/8w5I48z33LYBhjAE=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Received: (ofmipd johnl@64.57.183.62) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 27 Feb 2011 19:59:49 -0000
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:00:10 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102271457570.7355@joyce.lan>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <AF3A2DE418832E7A91CD07A5@Ximines.local>
References: <20110227182720.6537.qmail@joyce.lan> <552AB7D12FAB50296E795CF5@Ximines.local> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102271336340.6604@joyce.lan> <AF3A2DE418832E7A91CD07A5@Ximines.local>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] the same in old days, was making names the same NEED protocol changes?
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

> I think I'm being thick here. Doesn't the BNAME reference go the
> wrong way to autoconfigure a server based on it in a manner where
> there can be a security problem as a result?

You're quite right.  SHADOW goes the right way, but requires a zone cut 
everywhere that there's aliases.

I'm not seeing any particularly pretty ways to fix BNAME to tell which 
ones are approved.  It's not unlike the rDNS problem.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext