Subject: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt (fwd)

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:21:49 +0100

This butchering of RFC 2317 is in response to a couple of things:

Firstly, Petr Spacek's important observation that some reverse DNS UPDATE
agents are not compatible with RFC 2317. There was some discussion about
whether Petr's draft imposed the wrong requirements on too many UPDATE
clients, especially ones not involved in the reverse DNS. My draft
includes a different take on this fix, which errs on the side of being too
specific. Also I'm not sure if it belongs in this document.

Secondly, I deployed a second consolidated reverse DNS zone last month,
which uses DNAME for classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation on a short prefix.
Our first one was deployed by Chris Thompson in 2009 and you can find it
at 128.232.128.0/17 and in-addr.arpa.cam.ac.uk. Our second one is for
10.128.0.0/9 so you can't see it outside our network, but you can see some
notes at https://jackdaw.cam.ac.uk/ipreg/nsconfig/consolidated-reverse-zones.html

I think this DNAME technique ought to be documented, and that RFC 2317
has some shortcomings, so I respectfully submit this update for your
review.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
Viking, North Utsire: Easterly 4 or 5, increasing 6 at times. Slight or
moderate, but rough in southwest Viking. Showers later. Good, occasionally
poor later.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:06:59 -0700
From: [email-masked]
To: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Tony Finch and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis
Revision:	00
Title:		Classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation and dynamic reverse DNS UPDATE
Document date:	2015-10-13
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		20
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00

Abstract:
   This memo describes how to do IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation on any non-
   octet boundary, and how to consolidate reverse DNS for multiple
   address blocks into one zone.

   It also clarifies the behaviour of dynamic reverse DNS UPDATE
   clients.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Bob Harold <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:43:06 -0400

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Tony Finch <[email-masked]> wrote:

> notes at
> https://jackdaw.cam.ac.uk/ipreg/nsconfig/consolidated-reverse-zones.html
>
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis/
>    It also clarifies the behaviour of dynamic reverse DNS UPDATE>
>  clients.
> >
>

When I first read the last paragraph of section 8, I was confused by
"delegate the reverse DNS as usual" so I am hoping that it can be reworded
somehow.  I was not sure which of the sections above was "as usual" but
finally realized that it meant "at octet boundaries".  Not sure if that is
confusing to anyone else, or if adding an example would be helpful.

Also, I prefer the 'start-prefix' version of naming delegated zones, so I
was hoping that would be the main example, but it is your document, so you
get to choose your preference.

---
Bob Harold

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:20:50 +0100

Bob Harold <[email-masked]> wrote:

Thanks for reading the draft!

> somehow.

Yes, I can see that might be confusing. I think I meant any kind of
delegation, at octet boundaries or classless, though if you put a DNAME at
the apex of a classless zone you will have CNAME-to-DNAME or
DNAME-to-DNAME chains which is brave. I'll think about this a bit more :-)

> get to choose your preference.

I fully expect that will turn out to be the consensus since that is what
RFC 2317 suggests in its charmingly roundabout manner :-)
The first-last convention has the minor advantage of accommodating
non-CIDR delegations (though I forgot to mention that in the draft),
but this might be considered a disadvantage by the more routing-minded.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
Faeroes: Southwest 5 to 7, occasionally gale 8 later. Rough or very rough.
Rain in northwest. Good, occasionally poor in northwest.

---

From: "Niall O'Reilly" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 23:54:38 +0100

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:20:50 +0100,
Tony Finch wrote:
> non-CIDR delegations

  or perversely-fragmented CIDR ones such as /26, 2x/26, /26, with
  a single organization responsible for the middle pair of /26,
  and otherwise no common responsibility.  8-)

  /N

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:08:29 -0700

>   and otherwise no common responsibility.  8-)

in the deep prehistory of rfc 2317, i wanted cidr style naming
conventions, geertjan wanted range style, and geertjan was right.

-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:27:28 +1100

>   and otherwise no common responsibility.  8-)

Which all non-CIDR delegations can be reduced to.  :-)

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Bob Harold <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:01:16 -0400

> That's an interesting advantage.  I had not thought of that.  Perhaps you
should mention it in the draft.  You might convince some of us to change
our minds.

-- 
Bob Harold

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:04:41 +0100

> should mention it in the draft.  You might convince some of us to change

Already done for the next version :-)

https://git.csx.cam.ac.uk/x/ucs/u/fanf2/rfc2317bis.git/commitdiff/72b9ebbe

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
Tyne, Northwest Dogger: Northeast 4 or 5. Slight or moderate. Showers. Good.

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:08:08 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Bob Harold wrote:

> That's an interesting advantage.  I had not thought of that.  Perhaps you should mention it in the draft.  You might convince
> some of us to change our minds. 

Possibly call it "classless delegations" which is the term used in RFC-2317

Paul