Re: [DNSOP] draft-jabley-dnsop-ordered-answers

Paul Vixie <vixie@tisf.net> Fri, 06 November 2015 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <vixie@tisf.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F03E21B2D94 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:09:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jxoAmmhYTHa3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:09:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 761371B2D90 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:09:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linux-85bq.suse (unknown [24.104.150.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB9FE18122; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 18:09:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@tisf.net>
To: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 10:09:37 -0800
Message-ID: <2079341.ETYR92M9lR@linux-85bq.suse>
Organization: TISF
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.12-1-default; KDE/4.14.10; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CA+nkc8CHPmZe3ev4j+LA_vgVJEgbtyRM+1=K=YM4-KJxYtTjCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E5B644E-EA0D-4287-8AB5-1907EE06BE1C@hopcount.ca> <3330849.lFpNtEzbQ8@linux-85bq.suse> <CA+nkc8CHPmZe3ev4j+LA_vgVJEgbtyRM+1=K=YM4-KJxYtTjCQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-GQEDauxwIsAA1icch_x5A_-s74>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 10:26:43 -0800
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-jabley-dnsop-ordered-answers
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 18:09:40 -0000

On Friday, November 06, 2015 01:05:00 PM Bob Harold wrote:
> I thought of suggesting that "clients SHOULD accept answers in any order".
> But on second thought, this increases code complexity, for no real
> benefit.  And we will probably see more low-compute-power devices doing
> some basic DNS lookups that need to keep code to a minimum.

i agree with this conclusion but not with your reasons as stated.

as marka pointed out up-thread, RFC 1035 already describes answer construction 
in a certain order, and in that sense, the jabley--ordered-answers draft is 
merely a clarification in case anyone misunderstood 1035's ordering 
implications.

however, low-compute-power devices in 2015 already have 10X the computing 
power of the VAX 8350 i ran all of DEC.COM's e-mail through (for ~130K 
employees) in 1989. we don't have to worry about their computational burden 
now, and that trend will accelerate. which is a good thing, because DNSSEC 
must become ubiquitous, all the way to the edge.

-- 
P. Vixie