Re: [Add] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-add-enterprise-split-dns-01.txt

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

A question (*)...

On 17/03/2021 02:58, Paul Vixie wrote:
> generally speaking, a modern RFC protocol
> says "if you want to do_this_, here's a way to do it interoperably." while
> "prevent interference by on-path actors" is not a form of interopability,

Don't you think that ossification due to often not-often
updated middleboxes has an effect on interoperability? I
thought that was a more-or-less accepted proposition, but
perhaps it's not.

ISTM if one does accept an "aged middlebox breaks things"
argument, then "interference by on-path actors" is clearly
one of the barriers to interoperability we face. (At the
same time, I do not claim all interference by on-path actors
is "bad" - there are some benefits to firewalls, even if
those also often become brittle, e.g. due to out-dated
configs.)

To be clear: I'm not myself sure how middlebox arguments
affect ADD - on one view, they don't, as we're talking here
about stub<->recursive interactions, but OTOH, the "<->"
there can involve a few hops in various ways, so it's
quite possible that someone may view some of those boxen
as middlenboxen.

Thanks,
S.

(*) To be honest, mine is maybe as loaded a question as if
I'd described things as "full-throated" or wondered about
flying pigs etc. But FWIW, I don't mind a bit of rhetoric
at all:-)