Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis

Joao Damas <joao@bondis.org> Tue, 24 May 2011 07:37 UTC

Return-Path: <joao@bondis.org>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09DB1E06CE for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2011 00:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BZezM7fJjIxU for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2011 00:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.bondis.org (voyager.c-l-i.net [194.176.119.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B62DE06B6 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2011 00:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from book3.c-l-i.net (book3.c-l-i.net [204.62.249.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp1.bondis.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96AE11AB301; Tue, 24 May 2011 07:37:41 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Joao Damas <joao@bondis.org>
In-Reply-To: <a06240800ca007c696518@[10.31.200.118]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 09:37:40 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CADAC9D5-04EB-423C-8C3A-FE153E98C94B@bondis.org>
References: <4DC94AE6.5000903@ogud.com> <878vtxku9a.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <a06240800ca007c696518@[10.31.200.118]>
To: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 07:37:45 -0000

On 23 May 2011, at 23:08, Edward Lewis wrote:

> At 23:00 +0200 5/23/11, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Olafur Gudmundsson:
>> 
>>> This document obsoletes RFC2671.  The big changes from RFC2671 are:
>>>   - explicit usage of RFC2119 terms and labeling EDNS0 support as MUST;
>>>   - discussion on payload sizes and selection;
>>>   - closing of the extended label types registry and classifying
>>>        bit-labels as Historic;
>>>   - cleanup of IANA actions (that did not take place when RFC2671
>>>       was issued).
>> 
>> I would like to see guidance to implementors how they can actually
>> detect EDNS0 support or the lack thereof.  Alternatively, a minimum
>> level of support could be made mandatory, eventually making the
>> existing detection logic obsolete.
> 
> As far as declaring "a minimum level of support": an RFC cannot say "you must implement me, even if you were implemented last year." That just doesn't work.
> 

Yep.

> For backwards compatibility, we are stuck with probing for functionality.  This is a weakness of the DNS architecture.
> -- 

DNS transactions are meant to take a minimum of resources on either side. That is kind of contrary to a feature negotiation handshake ahead of the query (though one could cache a server's characteristics after the first exchange if the two messages, query and response, are able to transport that information. I think that's all that could be said here

Joao