Hi Ted,
At 06:02 15-05-2014, Ted Lemon wrote:
I think it's worth documenting this option because there's a code
reserved for it, but I think it's highly questionable whether it
makes the internet better, because it encourages practices with DNS
that wind up violating the expectations resolvers might have for
consistency of zones and so on. See for instance my DISCUSS here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-framework/ballot/
This wound up opening up a huge can of worms about the various
assumptions that CDNs make about how resolvers will process DNS
records, how this mechanism interacts with DNSSEC, etc. These
things are definitely worth documenting, because people are doing
them. But whether they improve the internet is very much open for
debate. The CDNI document specifies other ways of accomplishing
the same thing that I think are much less fraught.
What makes the internet better is usually subject to discussion. The
words "internet" and "better" in the previous sentence are not defined. :-)
I sent a few comments about that CDNI draft. The DNS discussion in
the draft was problematic. It is worth documenting what people are
doing. It is worthwhile to consider whether the mechanism should be
standardized by the IETF.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
