Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query

[Tony Finch <[e-mail]>]

Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> if you mean label boundaries you have to say label boundaries,
> because dots can appear inside labels.

Yes.

> second, you can't send a burst of queries, as a validator. even apart
> from the fact that any CNAME (RFC 2317 style) can add delegation points
> that weren't at label boundaries in your original QNAME, and there can
> be more than one of these, so you're not at RTT=1 or even RTT<=2, you're
> at RTT>0 without knowing the upper bound...

You get the entire CNAME chain in the first RTT so you can validate all
the links in the chain in the second RTT.

> ...you can't flood the channel.

In most cases this will be four or six concurrent queries which is hardly
flooding the channel. This is comparable to the TCP initial window or the
burst of SYNs you get when a browser starts fetching a page full of
images.

Browsers send a lot of concurrent queries. My experience with adns tells
me that concurrent queries work nicely at volumes orders of magnitude
bigger than we are considering here.

If you already have a TCP channel open you can send all the queries with
one write and they'll happily fit in a single segment.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[e-mail]>  http://dotat.at/
Shannon, South Rockall: Southwesterly 7 to severe gale 9, increasing storm 10,
perhaps violent storm 11 later. Very rough or high, becoming high or very high
later. Rain or thundery showers. Moderate or poor, occasionally good.