IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-edns-tags-00.txt

Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org> Tue, 05 March 2019 00:48 UTC

Return-Path: <rwfranks@gmail.com>
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 079FD13124B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:48:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.018, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 XR04FCjEj3Yp for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:48:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-f45.google.com (mail-io1-f45.google.com [209.85.166.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFFFD131249 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:48:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-f45.google.com with SMTP id e186so5588343ioa.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 16:48:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=s+HiyjEN4OPEXH+I7EOIB5McLzjWhjHsBaSi1yXUvM8=; b=Uz3MvNFWRsD/zvp9R4nOrtchXQr1mGhANeOb1aANQwyhRWjEYmlm0/aN6iyrfSycOk TAAxNPvq/PX5PjcM+A70idNFbgu6hqDvZAKuCED+pP85wJLqPjllpmW6LVX/5oJw6ydA cqno9IrtK59rMSmmyKXaacHE4YqqNHJMm3EWnqgvWvjnrPP+RDOlryi9GaGqXv3rhdlV fH4oT+AOIqu8lNs92Vj/KRJB1Ks8FihAP+5mn1ydEMMiGiOeWiSUU85QP+gnrt+fj9m3 HeGs/pq1DG9s0b00+lotJaydxxV7cUxGR8oSJyHdHCVJbD+utQfRfRs7sCtvHLt5w/L6 p6Lw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVv4rW0ZmbCBRcZKY3EWZI1oEEHThaQYdbshrstAnFI3v813XnI 3izrcZy1J6FaDhkC5tG2vfalcCWUB48FL2YgNUs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzCyo497Qr/mbUdJw/LZXn/8SZt0IIpyTM9v2QvQDkwkIlcxBLPSTXi3kBnrsTt76HrOX2DbapI695PF6NwO98=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:97c8:: with SMTP id k8mr11952347ios.267.1551746930909; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 16:48:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155171606493.5281.3957934874516100450.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5c3cc3f9-2225-9077-fb9e-0fb940bd1c1b@isc.org> <yblef7mp7io.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <CAKW6Ri5doXL=uBpEy3Eqrkoyfu9rvt9upH9qxXkzZKUgS_=dMw@mail.gmail.com> <ybla7iap5nx.fsf@wu.hardakers.net>
In-Reply-To: <ybla7iap5nx.fsf@wu.hardakers.net>
From: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 00:48:14 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKW6Ri7L=r_ix6sX_0KGmzBstq+JUf=D7R_rTsgvDQCPrEC++Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
Cc: Ray Bellis <ray@isc.org>, IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009926e405834e3cb6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/6L4dnYXTQNKdILzW3K2tQ0t6s3I>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-edns-tags-00.txt
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: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 00:48:54 -0000

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 23:43, Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:

> Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org> writes:
>
> > As the man said, "[semantics are] determined by bi-lateral agreement".
> > If the counter-party decides to do something different, it has
> repudiated the
> > agreement.
>
> Yes, and that's where I see a problem: when the software doesn't know
> the agreement has been severed.
>

Non-performance by one party to the agreement will inevitably cause
something to fail,
which will be directly observable by the [singular] counter-party.

--Dick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email