On Jul 26, 2022, at 15:29, Ólafur Guðmundsson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Parent is authoritative for the existence of the delegation
> Child is authoritative for the contents of the delegation
>
> DNS design did not take this into account thus there is no "range" of Parent
> only records,
> DS is the only record that is explicitly a "violation" of this
>
> IMHO RFC103x should have defined a DEL record in parent and NS in the child
> then resolvers could have kept both sides.
I recall suggesting a retrofit for this once before.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jabley-dnsop-refer-00
I wrote that quite a while ago, and I seem to remember being surprised at the
lack of public indigestion that resulted from it. Perhaps that just means
people didn't read it. It doesn't seem to be completely terrible, having just
skimmed through it again.
(In an alternate reality where REFER was implemented and in common use, perhaps
the weird DS mechanism that we have would also have different RRTYPEs split
between parent and child and would not need to be weird.)
If there is anybody else with sufficiently bad taste to imagine trying any of
this out, perhaps we could talk. I am not be in Philadelphia this week,
however, so I am not immediately availble for the alcoholic aspirations
imagined by the text in appendix A.1.
Joe
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
