IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] Re: DNSOPSynchronizing caches of DNS resolvers ("poisonlicious" draft)

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Tue, 28 July 2026 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3906411FFB9B0 for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 11:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1785262950; bh=YNs7yAhuam4uzucnXXMgc2jxscv3wQE9kMshGyy1zVs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=droelSm3dOK8ercm37+EfMEA8oqEWShG67QyfhGu9TzBkwbcbY4LQNdChO24+8brp WbVS0s9qWiTsBi7QEjBUq2w79y9u5L3HWXjfac9CBLT6lfqWZbfylNzXvtqVC2jERl sIQYAVAnzBxAAxQt5RvC2rfKaEo9av5YZJheSUkc=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hardakers.net
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5rmWwhM4F_Bk for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 11:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [107.220.113.177]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E227811FFB9AB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 11:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [104.133.196.213]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D1189201F2; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.hardakers.net D1189201F2
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hardakers.net; s=default; t=1785262941; bh=e1KlsK2nCCMyChqOi6pm7TrwY+LbJO+16y3CEXUt6Cw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=JUH+9jZCX2uEkui/lz6IbCR5RCVqxT3FqtXO0U1k3HHjFDhHuRdmMD2DymWS59u8N fauqp3DwgkTr1zgsvhYW+94i8AU4gT/KS/U0lNzodBtThRFoMv8EYtmVLv1d7LeHvt jfsEcZPSpx5qTCAO5iNomYZL2a1SAJqUDsapihkQ=
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
In-Reply-To: <amiuLsqKaSPWuGeo@nic.fr> (Stephane Bortzmeyer's message of "Tue, 28 Jul 2026 15:27:10 +0200")
References: <al4QKxmXzVPfghm9@nic.fr> <C7BA4A7F-4EB8-48B8-A45E-3CCF33F209B0@pch.net> <ybltspki7ln.fsf@wa.hardakers.net> <amiuLsqKaSPWuGeo@nic.fr>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 11:22:21 -0700
Message-ID: <yblecgnht42.fsf@wa.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-ID-Hash: D43XTAU76Y2HE4TUSH6XPUG5ZO7EBRJ5
X-Message-ID-Hash: D43XTAU76Y2HE4TUSH6XPUG5ZO7EBRJ5
X-MailFrom: wjhns1@hardakers.net
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>, dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: DNSOPSynchronizing caches of DNS resolvers ("poisonlicious" draft)
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/5BytSY4AKQbWHLjWSjW6BMELevw>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> writes:

> Imagine Unbound implementing only TSIG and BIND implementing only DoT.

Then the better way (IMHO) to state that is not to say that one must be
used, but rather one must be implemented.  I wouldn't mind that.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Google

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status