Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-00.txt

Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu> Tue, 14 November 2017 16:06 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <23050.45832.787089.325014@gro.dd.org>
References: <150940017764.7814.6739838599217498076@ietfa.amsl.com> <23040.33307.69754.133713@gro.dd.org> <23050.45832.787089.325014@gro.dd.org>
From: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:06:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+nkc8B1sVhjbn1xYu4rQNgUZGgeaqnVjW=U0nmpRdu6rvXU2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c11a6c0ead171055df392a5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/bM4r2vObudiVy0DpCeFZJcuGgWI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-00.txt
Precedence: list

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> wrote:

> Dave Lawrence writes:
> > The main changes, based on previous feedback, are:
> >
> > * Clarifying what the action is for Standards Track;
> > * Describing the algorithm previously proposed (and still included) as
> >   one example way of achieving the goals; and,
> > * Adding a rough proposal for an EDNS option that could be used for
> >   explicit signalling.
> >
> > That last item will be fleshed out more if there's demonstrated
> > interest from implementers in having such a thing.
>
> At the moment I'll observe there are no open issues against the draft,
> which is my comically passive-aggressive way of pointing out that it
> is obviously perfect and so let's just move it along to Last Call.
>
> This is now your opportunity to correspondingly observe that someone
> is wrong on the Internet and to respond appropriately.  At the very
> least, we'd like to know whether there is sufficient support for
> pursuing the EDNS option or just to take it back out (and leave the
> rest of the obviously perfect document as-is).
>
> Thanks in advance for any feedback,
> tale
>

I think signaling between the client and resolver is important.  I am a
little concerned about yet another option that the client might want to
send with every query.  Can the existence of *any* EDNS option from the
client be taken to mean that EDNS options are understood in general, and
the resolver is ok to respond with this ENDS option, which the client might
not understand but will not choke on?

Signalling between the resolver and authoritative server gets more
complicated.  Probably a good idea, but if the defaults are reasonable, it
probably won't need to be used often.

-- 
Bob Harold

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-… internet-drafts
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Dave Lawrence
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Dave Lawrence
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Paul Vixie
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Bob Harold
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Dave Lawrence
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Paul Vixie
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Alexander Mayrhofer
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Ray Bellis
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Alexander Mayrhofer
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Dave Lawrence
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Paul Vixie
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Paul Vixie
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Paul Wouters
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Dave Lawrence
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Dave Lawrence
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… P Vix
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… 神明達哉
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Paul Vixie
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… 神明達哉
Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-st… Paul Vixie