To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>
Date:
27 Apr 2003 23:25:09 +0000
In-Reply-To:
<20030427201649.89A5518E6@thrintun.hactrn.net>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
Subject:
Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-01.txt
> ... > While I understand and respect the author's intentions in attempting > to remove the BIND-specific aspects of an existing hack, this opens up > a nasty can of worms: > > 1) The draft asks IANA to allocate a new TLD, and a class-specific TLD > at that; > > 2) The draft specifies behavior for the (conceptual) zone > corresponding to that new class-specific TLD which is totally > inconsistant with the usual DNS data coherence model. > > Furthermore, even ignoring the above issues, this looks like a > protocol document than an ops document. i agree on all three points. the problem we solved with VERSION.BIND back in bind8 and now with the recent addition of HOSTNAME.BIND caused some other problems. it's unquestionably bad that we pirate a TLD in the CHAOS namespace for our version/hostname data. it's questionably bad that we do it by default, requiring people who want version/hostname privacy to have to make a config change to get it. however, not doing these things would have been worse, and trying to get IETF and IANA to allocate us some kind of QNAME/QCLASS/QTYPE for it would have been much much far worser even. > I can see two ways forward, depending on what the author and the WG > want to do: > > a) Strip this back down to an Informational doc describing an existing > BIND hack; or > > b) Change focus to trying to draft some useful behavior for the STATUS > opcode, and move the work over to DNSEXT. > > Comments? while i agree with your complaints about the draft, i think that your proposed alternatives are worse. STATUS will run into untold middlebox problems and will also take several years to finish the main part of the argument about. having an rfc number, even if only informational or experimental, that would seem to sanction TLD piracy of this form would be the biggest can of worms mentioned so far on this topic. therefore i support drc's draft as written, since it's the least of all known evils. right now a number of non-BIND implementations answer for VERSION.BIND and sometimes also HOSTNAME.BIND in the CHAOS class, just for feature-level competition. i regret choosing .BIND as the pirate TLD in the CHAOS class for this; it should have been .NAMESERVER or something else, and there should have been at least a technote describing it, and i should have sought an experimental rfc for it. -- Paul Vixie #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.