Re: [dnsext] WGLC ENDS0-bis

Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz> Mon, 23 May 2011 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
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 50C9AE07F3 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 14:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 3-D4VRvnt2su for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 14:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stora.ogud.com (stora.ogud.com [66.92.146.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 970B5E079C for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 14:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from work-laptop-2 (nyttbox.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.4]) by stora.ogud.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4NL8MIJ098267; Mon, 23 May 2011 17:08:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz)
Received: from [10.31.200.118] by work-laptop-2 (PGP Universal service); Mon, 23 May 2011 17:08:22 -0400
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by work-laptop-2 on Mon, 23 May 2011 17:08:22 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a06240800ca007c696518@[10.31.200.118]>
In-Reply-To: <878vtxku9a.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
References: <4DC94AE6.5000903@ogud.com> <878vtxku9a.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 17:08:19 -0400
To: <dnsext@ietf.org>
From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.20.30.4
Cc: ed.lewis@neustar.biz
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: Mon, 23 May 2011 21:08:25 -0000

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.

For backwards compatibility, we are stuck with probing for 
functionality.  This is a weakness of the DNS architecture.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

Now, don't say I'm always complaining.
Wait, that's a complaint, isn't it?