Re: [DNSOP] Introducing draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 08:33:28AM +1000, George Michaelson wrote:
> Very strong +1. The % of incoming query with DO set is far, far higher
> than the % of incoming query seen at authority who subsequently ask
> for DS/DNSKEY at zone and parent. There is a good, strong indication
> that resolvers pass DO as a compile/run flag of capability to handle
> additional records in response, not as an indication of intent to
> perform any function using them.

I might feel more comfortable if the proposal required DO, but AFAICT
it doesn't (I might have misread, of course.  I found the I-D a little
terse).  If it does require DO, however, we're back to requiring
EDNS0.  In that case, we could just use an EDNS0-based signal.

As I think many here know, I am not of the get-off-my-lawn persuasion
for DNS innovations.  I don't think it's a bad idea in principle.  I'm
just aware that we have this long history, and that history was based
on a certain kind of conservatism that is arguably appropriate to a
technology quite as fundamental to the Internet functioning as the DNS
is.  If we're going to abandon that conservatism, I think it needs
quite a lot more early IETF buy-in than we might get by developing
this work here in DNSOP.  The more signal we can get to suggest that
DNS actors are ok with the innovation, the lower I think that bar gets.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]