Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-08-07 Thread Petr Špaček
On 24.7.2017 15:43, Tony Finch wrote: > Peter van Dijk wrote: >> >> One could make $GENERATE more efficient without actually implementing >> the BULK RR, by taking your pattern matching logic and implementing it >> inside the name server. > > Andrew Sullivan was

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-31 Thread Woodworth, John R
> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vernon Schryver > > > From: "Woodworth, John R" > > > > One could make $GENERATE more efficient without actually > > > implementing the BULK RR, by taking your pattern matching

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-24 Thread Paul Vixie
Tony Finch wrote: Peter van Dijk wrote: One could make $GENERATE more efficient without actually implementing the BULK RR, by taking your pattern matching logic and implementing it inside the name server. Andrew Sullivan was right to say that there is an

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-24 Thread Tony Finch
Woodworth, John R wrote: > > Wildcards are a good start, or at least they appear so on the surface. > > Unfortunately, the vagueness of their definition and various > implementations of wildcards would make this a poor choice. Do you mean there are problems with

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-22 Thread Vernon Schryver
> From: "Woodworth, John R" > > One could make $GENERATE more efficient without actually implementing > > the BULK RR, by taking your pattern matching logic and implementing it > ... > This would still be a vendor-hack (bind) and not a standard. The examples

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-22 Thread Woodworth, John R
> From: Jim Reid [mailto:j...@rfc1035.com] > > > On 20 Jul 2017, at 02:17, Woodworth, John R > > wrote: > > > > this is just a next-gen $GENERATE > > Indeed. We all get that. However $GENERATE is a BIND-ism, like > views. It’s not part of the DNS protocol. I’m not

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-22 Thread Woodworth, John R
> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter van Dijk > > Hello John, > > 1 and 2 could be covered with a wildcard PTR, as I think Tony Finch pointed > out. > Hi Peter, Thanks for your comments. Wildcards are a good start, or at least they

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-22 Thread Woodworth, John R
> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Bortzmeyer > Hi Stéphane, Thanks again for your comments and encouragement. > > > The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state Candidate for > > WG Adoption

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-22 Thread Jim Reid
> On 20 Jul 2017, at 02:17, Woodworth, John R > wrote: > > this is just a next-gen $GENERATE Indeed. We all get that. However $GENERATE is a BIND-ism, like views. It’s not part of the DNS protocol. I’m not yet convinced $GENERATE (albeit with a BULK makeover)

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-21 Thread Peter van Dijk
Hello John, On 20 Jul 2017, at 3:17, Woodworth, John R wrote: Although in practice the name would likely be shorter and potentially include other customer attributes, say acmewabbit-21f-5bff-fec3-ab9d.example.com 1. This shows the owner is example.com, customer acmewabbit 2. Reverse

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-20 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:24:33PM -0700, IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> wrote a message of 11 lines which said: > The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state > Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski) > > The document is av

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-19 Thread Paul Vixie
sth...@nethelp.no wrote: Can you provide a technical reason for per-address IPv6 reverse DNS? Where I work, we bulk populate reverse v4 DHCP pools just so we know that they are pools. We aren't going to bother doing that with v6 because everything is a pool, except for a relatively small

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-19 Thread sthaug
> Can you provide a technical reason for per-address IPv6 reverse DNS? > > Where I work, we bulk populate reverse v4 DHCP pools just so we know that > they are pools. We aren't going to bother doing that with v6 because > everything is a pool, except for a relatively small number of statically >

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-19 Thread Jim Reid
> On 19 Jul 2017, at 11:34, Woodworth, John R > wrote: > > Think of this as your property (e.g. your yard). Each IP address > in itself is small but without the sum of each, what do you have? > > Suddenly, each blade of grass has value. What value has each

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-19 Thread Tony Finch
Woodworth, John R wrote: > > For IPv4 I can't see what advantage BULK has over $GENERATE > > or similar back-end provisioning scripts. > > Really? If you're proposing a forklift upgrade of the DNS then I think you need to make the advantages clear, rather than

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-19 Thread Woodworth, John R
> -Original Message- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wouters > > I kind of disagree. > Hi Paul, Thanks for the feedback! > > We are adding something to DNS that's not just a new RRTYPE. It > requires code changes and has a deployment and long tail. If the

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-19 Thread Jim Reid
> On 19 Jul 2017, at 10:37, Tony Finch wrote: > > BULK seems like far too much cleverness applied to far too small a problem. +1. I'm not convinced there is a problem here that needs fixing. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-19 Thread Tony Finch
Paul Wouters wrote: > > I would feel much better if there would be some real use csases to > justify adding special code to DNS that will instantly become obsolete. Yes. For IPv4 I can't see what advantage BULK has over $GENERATE or similar back-end provisioning scripts. For

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-19 Thread Paul Wouters
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, George Michaelson wrote: Read, support. This is a useful addition to document how to do something. Now, the 'outer' question of the value of reverse-DNS label binding, thats a different conversation. I can well imagine a bunch of bikeshed-painting, but lets focus on this

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2017-07-19 Thread George Michaelson
population of a zone? I like it. So yea. I think we should have this. G On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:24 PM, IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> wrote: > > The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state > Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski) &