Subject: Re: wcard discussions in Minneapolis

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:57:25 -0500

Speaking as the person who has to edit a response from all this...

How about we document that there are inconsistencies in the 
definition of DNS which lead to unclear semantics when asterisk 
labels are delegation points or DNAME rewrite points.  In the spirit 
of their being inconsistencies, i.e., no right and wrong, no best 
current practice, we declare that we are not going to delineate rules 
at this time.

One reason for this is that there is a fear that if we outlaw 
behavior now, it will be unavailable to us in the future.  While I 
have deep sympathy for this, I think the future for DNS as we know it 
has already been crimped by many forces.  I think that we're past the 
point where we ought to be anticipating the unanticipatable.  (No, 
it's not a word.)

E.g., CNAME rewriting of queries in the authoritative server in RFC 
1034 was the first ill advised crimp.  (Did they forget CNAMEs in the 
infamous step 3 part c or was the omission intentional?)  In a 
perfect world, we should be able to define a base behavior that 
accommodates future innovation via extension.  We've already been in 
a phase where surgery is needed to the base (e.g. EDNS0) to 
accommodate new features (DNSSEC).

I don't think we have a critical mass of understanding of just how 
wild cards and delegation points/rewrite points work profit anyone. 
We have heard of some use cases that are operationally abnormal (like 
a zone whose name is *.anydomain.) but fit within protocol guidelines.

IMHO, it's arguments over such situations that endanger the IETF's 
relevance to operations.  Think of how much time we've devoted to an 
example that no would do except to prove a point.  It's like paying 
for lunch with US$2 bills.  (You know who you are!)  Yeah, they're 
legal tender in the US and, yes, the cash register makers don't give 
them a bay.

I would say that now we just recognize and document the 
inconsistencies.  I would say that when there is a clear way to iron 
out the wrinkles we do so, and no sooner.  I would say that if we 
lose something by not defining this now, well, I don't think we will 
be losing much.  There are bigger problems in DNS.

Maybe the latter is my motivation of this answer: I'm getting to the 
point where I would like to wrap this document up and move on to 
cleaning up the IANA references or to some of the Proposed Standard 
documents that haven't made it to Draft Standard yet.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Achieving total enlightenment has taught me that ignorance is bliss.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:29:25 -0800

> current practice, we declare that we are not going to delineate rules 

Declaring such a cause for a warning or error, when there is no
behavioral definition, reduces risks.

-Doug

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:45:03 +0200

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:57:25 -0500

> current practice, we declare that we are not going to delineate rules 

Sounds like a fair approach to me. Anybody not agreeing raise your voices.

--Olaf

---------------------------------| Olaf M. Kolkman
---------------------------------| RIPE NCC
---------------------------------| JID: olaf at jabber.secret-wg.org

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:50:30 +0000

> Sounds like a fair approach to me. Anybody not agreeing raise your voices.

	i like the words and intent.

--bill

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:37:16 -0500

> current practice, we declare that we are not going to delineate rules 

Ok with me.