Subject: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

From: IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 12:56:36 -0800

The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements
in state 
Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)

The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements/

---

From: Ondřej Surý <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 03:51:38 +0100 (CET)

Dear all,

I reviewed draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation and I think

--
 Ondřej Surý -- Technical Fellow
 --------------------------------------------
 CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o.    --     Laboratoře CZ.NIC
 Milesovska 5, 130 00 Praha 3, Czech Republic
 mailto:[email-masked]    https://nic.cz/
 --------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
> From: "IETF Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked], "dnsop" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Sent: Monday, 14 November, 2016 21:56:36
> Subject: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements in state "Candidate for WG
> Adoption"

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Ondřej Surý <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 04:09:48 +0100 (CET)

Dear all,

I reviewed draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation and I think
it useful as an overview of the current RFC on the subject
are.  At the same time I think that in some parts it doesn't
match the current (or possibly) future operational best practice.

One such example is the "@ MX 0 ." that's commonly used
to express that no mail should be ever received at the
child zone (and honored by most reasonable mail servers).

Therefore I would like to reiterate what I said during the
dnsop meeting in Seoul.  This is certainly a valuable document,
but it makes more sense to keep it close to the tool that
uses the rules contained within this document.  As the
operational practice changes, the document outside the IETF
could be updated much faster, and some parts could say:

Although RFC<foo> recommends <this and that>, the current
operational practice is <foobar>.

Zonemaster and other possible tools might than have an
option for RFC-level strictness, or it could be more relaxed.

That would allow for better flexibility when there's a need
- similar to various TLS testing tools out there.

~~~

As a nit - you use terms "legal hostname" and "valid hostname"
without a definition - an language in relevant paragraphs 
make no distinction.  I understand what you are trying to say
(legal is about syntax, valid is legal+A or AAAA RRSet must
exist), others might be confused.

Cheers,

>> Subject: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed
>> draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements in state "Candidate for WG
>> Adoption"
>