Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.txt [and 1 more messages]

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Fri, 01 March 2019 21:11 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5D7130F78 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 13:11:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Z87IaE2zAOTB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 13:11:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EE34131247 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 13:11:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 13:10:58 -0800
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 13:10:57 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: David Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
CC: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.txt [and 1 more messages]
Thread-Index: AQHU0HEIf+NfUaVpPkWtynk0WtRhWqX3y8CA
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 21:10:57 +0000
Message-ID: <48F9133C-4ACB-4043-BB70-FB1A64F3F08A@icann.org>
References: <155094804613.28045.8648150477440044197@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+nkc8DvZr84E46vna91iBsJ2uSVsda1cCzyTNx9C_J85uKW1w@mail.gmail.com> <23673.27866.35423.674591@gro.dd.org> <FD2C124D-BD1E-41AE-B4AB-007E451A32D6@icann.org> <53DB1048-2B9C-43CA-A6FD-C423DE0254B3@icann.org> <23673.39951.530675.858654@gro.dd.org>
In-Reply-To: <23673.39951.530675.858654@gro.dd.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4D605A74B0FE9840B17D4B185F6D00FF@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/33HqcxbEfwmwW1oeO3D8N2Lvkqo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.txt [and 1 more messages]
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 01 Mar 2019 21:11:12 -0000


> On Mar 1, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> wrote:
> 
> Paul Hoffman writes:
>> I'm not sure a standards track document that updates RFC 1034/1035
>> should be recommending a minimum TTL. 
> 
> As previously noted, we're making no such recommendation and that will
> be clarified.  

"Attempts to refresh from the authorities are recommended to be done no more frequently than every 30 seconds" feels like a recommendation because of the words "are recommended".

> The recommendations, however, are not in conflict with each other and
> I'm really not clear myself on where the criticism that they are
> confusing comes from.  

What is confusing is whether or not they are recommendations. If they are recommendations, why don't they appear in Section 4 with SHOULD and MAY languages? If they are not, how is an implementer meant to read them?

> (Personally I'd renumber 6.1 -> 7,
> 7 -> 8, etc, but  that's a minor separate issue.)

+1

--Paul Hoffman