Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-10.txt> (DNS Stateful Operations) to Proposed Standard

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 12 June 2018 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 2A250130E74 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 243ItNDZlzgp for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22f.google.com (mail-io0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22f]) (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 EB2E6130F8E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id e15-v6so383315iog.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7JS/G0AFYQvCEgC86w8BsXrQpXetOtNXieBH3DtDYNs=; b=aYkEMkRmvdSe9ABXy2gEyMrX9GFiWBELRbiHMK9Qh++RaLQUrJtmfBIpdd2hbNMxxo pza2qXkWy3ux+8NAmlpxlmQmQADJPZy3N7Rt7vA6E1+stHKg+g+rv2b4Mpl27coykeDn /q0dU+fRxOvDlzfdjQUIwfS6DC3BYtkQ2TFOS4WCvTY+TfbDew3aA8dJjUZsS+Vw5NRy oRZYo1ZPFVqdiXJNtRhqJvA+YLmCO9SXNIRyqapjePJBwUWO7xrVSzpEa79ktR/nKPIC xPW7Z5Wm2/FDUyIuSi6uwgHcvfDnqjVdtMDz78TLRB74b7cp5wkm4xJubm5iIPLsNJJG ATFw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7JS/G0AFYQvCEgC86w8BsXrQpXetOtNXieBH3DtDYNs=; b=SMQwC4ZIGLJ3HqbcUclaO4R4QgUBYQUN0OXBdDwHFLiUKoUMCtk//MpRhzf0IpGGIj OXPN1KjceRxDI/oJlKLoOhCnPy1akipPTT3hcIMpJRU6yyAUGl7MAsxWtQIr1h9MQVmK OWu40FK8J8Xyo8fTNBrdPzmqdod4asvkYrccULdMbAau/+mdjwtGf6DPPSTOVbbGlmJx mPxYPV2UTpJ4bVbcTpwnE9dS4cMMYfBI+9iJo0OPJhqj0/FROHFh/7eV7QCJxJwdnfP4 qEmX1sgpkvQMnFrFTsax+6+WP4OQs/XHk/zRXC3JebCV2N+ugU7sohPd9JTdXhO3vVWJ z9uw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E19FiJHXli7CHvpkZ4s/KU+FW7XuJEoKkp/pV2eJ17kpg1CsB4h Wb9KzqKbdfQXii72H3qYVmsGJyXwUwim/tEPNXWxCA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIji+QesSg4Rj9pJt4YGzCFFnh8cy/GXd6lG98pILS2k8DxmTOKd4dvnXR+bmu02Qitce1nr5yMW+QqPqikIeU=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:88a0:: with SMTP id s32-v6mr1453055ioi.45.1528825355228; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4f:6f86:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACWOCC8mvVssMAjrE30s3JeEtqSfEjq-29VRRZ2y6yZVEC5JFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <152873404868.2868.3475438265820373869.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CACWOCC_xzMt_y=vU1TukvetU+Ra3ei+k90Ed1q8tyNpeJCYLCA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=H6fa=sj03Y=8Ma7K0wZ5s=NiSA+KyhZcLUQPAzinsEg@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC_rdGMMqx_LZq+i9M1sJFYiV1wTURgKL74c6OEHjN-8=g@mail.gmail.com> <6EF3B6E9-F271-4833-8B36-BCEF36FAF910@bangj.com> <CACWOCC8mvVssMAjrE30s3JeEtqSfEjq-29VRRZ2y6yZVEC5JFA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:41:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1k_w2ykp7wfus9Fv13OyvCHH1kMW_NmAdOrh_9dyXRpcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Cc: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000038f802056e756400"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7QJoBsYWHF5JXYDHNQtTwXwcvdI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-10.txt> (DNS Stateful Operations) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 12 Jun 2018 17:42:41 -0000

Implementation reports are indeed good, yes.

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 12, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> >>> Yes.   I'm using it right now to implement
> draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-relay, and
> >>> that implementation is working and interoperating.   I don't know of
> another
> >>> independent implementation yet, unfortunately.
> >>
> >> Can you elaborate a bit more? What is the name of the implementation?
> >> This is an implementation in progress? I don't fully understand how
> >> there can be interoperating if there is no other implementation.
> >>
> >> I see roughly 150 (!) BCP14  keywords in this draft. Can you specify
> >> for your implementation for each of these normative keywords whether
> >> your implementation is complaint, or not, and if not why not?
> >
> > I did an initial implementation of a client and server for DNS push
> notifications which is based on Stateful Operations. This code isn’t public
> and I haven’t looked at it for about 6 months. But it did identify some
> issues early on in the draft that we corrected for.
>
> Fortunately whether the code is public or not is not relevant.
> However, what is relevant is that (1) it can be demonstrated that the
> proposed draft is actually implementable, (2) interoperability can be
> demonstrated between the various implementations.
>
> Implementation reports are a good way to present to the IETF what was
> implemented. For an extensive specification such as the draft at hand
> I am certainly missing some detailed information in this regard.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>