IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] need new flag bit in EDNS, "do me no favours" (DMNF)

Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> Sun, 24 October 2010 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E243A682F; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.861
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.861 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.554, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v8xquLqaTowF; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46EAE3A68E4; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1PA4hG-0005Nd-E5 for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:49:30 +0000
Received: from [2001:4f8:3:bb:230:48ff:fe5a:2f38] (helo=nsa.vix.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <vixie@vix.com>) id 1PA4hE-0005NN-5n for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:49:28 +0000
Received: from nsa.vix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nsa.vix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA16A1043 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:49:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vixie@nsa.vix.com)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] need new flag bit in EDNS, "do me no favours" (DMNF)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun\, 24 Oct 2010 10\:34\:05 MST." <AANLkTinGvVvjrbrs_0ZwAxUOR-SpCTnike_JqWRTRbSZ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <59023.1287939121@nsa.vix.com> <AANLkTinGvVvjrbrs_0ZwAxUOR-SpCTnike_JqWRTRbSZ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.1; nil; GNU Emacs 23.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:49:27 +0000
Message-ID: <62693.1287942567@nsa.vix.com>
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
List-Unsubscribe: the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
List-Archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:34:05 -0700
> From: Colm MacCárthaigh <colm@allcosts.net>
> 
> Sounds like an ok idea, though it's hard to see operators honouring the bit
> - but to meet your own burden of relevance; why should the DNS protocol be
> complicated with an EDNS change to facilitate the users of shared-resolvers
> when those users could simply run their own?

if it's a single bit that specifies optional behaviour that some people want,
and it's unlikely to create market pressure on people who have no need for it
on their own but who would have to implement it anyway (as i think is true of
the google proposal for adding stub IP to the recursive/authority q-tuple) and
it's not a layering change (dare i say "violation") as is definitely true of
the google stub-IP proposal, then it's effectively an FYI rather than a STD.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email