ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages

2008-11-13 13:51:40
At 10:39 AM -0800 11/13/08, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 07:25:32PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:
Can you please explain what this "fairly serious damage to the DNS
protocol" is?

The message I posted from Olafur and me the other day is supposed to
explain this already:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg53776.html

For the impatient, one fundamental problem is that the current
behaviour uses A records that do not contain host addresses, which is
contrary to the definition of an A record.

A



Andrew,
        Thanks for the pointer. I had missed this technical comment in
the crowd, and I think it is very important indeed.  By re-using RRs with
context-specific semantics, the proposal does serious harm to interoperability.

        Andrew and Olafur suggest one way around this (give a new RR for this 
use);
there are others, but this one is both available and makes sense for this usage.
They note that it would take some time to get this deployed.  I believe that
the rate of update among DNS-based reputation services is somewhat higher
than Andrew and Olafur seem to, but the change should go forward *whether
this draft is standardized or not*.  It's important for the interoperable 
understanding
of the DNS namespace for this to occur (or one of the related methods, like 
using
a class other than IN to occur).

                        regards,
                                        Ted Hardie



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>