IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Wed, 27 October 2010 04:16 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 54E553A6981; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.766
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 3BYgxj+wWckx; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34793A697D; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1PAxLj-000Pmg-DL for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:10:55 +0000
Received: from trantor.virtualized.org ([204.152.189.190] helo=virtualized.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <drc@virtualized.org>) id 1PAxLg-000Pk4-ST for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:10:53 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F31EE7A10; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at virtualized.org
Received: from virtualized.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (trantor.virtualized.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JvvG8I5+VrzG; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.7] (cpe-70-95-123-210.hawaii.res.rr.com [70.95.123.210]) by virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 996E3EE7A04; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Re: need new flag bit in EDNS, "do me no favours" (DMNF)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <72674.1288058394@nsa.vix.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:10:36 -1000
Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BB7E17D5-86A2-44EC-A065-4ED2CC81FA2B@virtualized.org>
References: <59023.1287939121@nsa.vix.com> <20101025094523.GA5187@nic.fr> <41281.1288025835@nsa.vix.com> <20101025233215.4A495606495@drugs.dv.isc.org> <72674.1288058394@nsa.vix.com>
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
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/>

On Oct 25, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> as long as it's clear that we're not changing the q-tuple between recursive
> and authoritative, i'm fine with unlimited complexity in stub-to-recursive
> (that is, RD=1) options.

Simple: good. Complex: bad.

> am i on the wrong track according to those (three) who have +1'd this so far?

I fear you've one foot on a slippery slope.

> is anyone else +1 for this approach (willing to review, etc)?

I'm willing to review, albeit the additional complexity now introduced makes it much less appealing to me.

Regards,
-drc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email