Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-02.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 28 July 2021 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 6C6F13A15E4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 09:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 vLRVFKtkzBuc for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 09:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C1BB3A15E6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 09:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4GZdk22bSqz4Kc; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 18:03:22 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1627488202; bh=hSbrQCmwoL0HolRpyVwDiSTx3cqzUIS6yz1H6NZSiE8=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=iE7w7o5KzTSvm11AEwsutPdgUGCmiqZV4y6Nl1kabPOUMUQ8AdwaiGo0P8IcPqEbD PMEuTAnAVCm5aBmaRB92p5k3Mwygm/8VuP65vCB1tkR/0VwJZe3xiQGBi+Aim1Ep+r Rsjrh5TtBW1pf9Gt4/bfULl3ZwLFfxrcGMfX9a7E=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kW5VhC6duGQG; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 18:03:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 18:03:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ABF71D247C; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:03:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82B2D247B; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:03:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:03:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <E08C35F2-40F6-4DF9-B894-65131ED276A8@fl1ger.de>
Message-ID: <b7ef8e8f-f7c7-ccc3-a53f-69a4eecc24ff@nohats.ca>
References: <20210727201504.2939B25365A4@ary.qy> <D6F6C939-5FD2-4687-8D73-E4F03181C566@isc.org> <6A6C1BAF-9640-4A6C-9220-3B0A97209C93@fl1ger.de> <f4e1d24-730-e06d-925-b8f5a9225a84@nohats.ca> <E08C35F2-40F6-4DF9-B894-65131ED276A8@fl1ger.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7s143d5bAqhjfsBy0y0wxn7n8ys>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-02.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: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 16:03:31 -0000

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021, Ralf Weber wrote:

>>  First, as Mark said, sibling glue is sometimes needed.
> It is only needed for broken circular dependancies, which we don’t care 
> about.

They are not broken until you decide "we don't care about" :)

>>  Second, the server will most likely not know whether or not the glue
>>  is needed, it will just include it so it does not have to follow the
>>  complicated looping zones to determine if it is needed or not. Since it
>>  does not know if it is needed or not, it cannot make a smart decision
>>  on whether setting TC=1 is overkill or not. Thus the document saying
>>  "also for sibling glue, just set TC=1 if it does not fit".
> Ok that is not what the draft says. It says you must include sibbling
> glue, no matter what. Setting TC=1 if you include sibling glue and it can not
> fit it is something different. That probably makes sense for all referall
> where glues don’t fit.

We will look at improving the wording in the draft. The draft is not
about changing the rules of glue - we just thought to include some of
it to help implementers and to help explain why it is important to set
TC=1 even if you think it is harmless to not include some or all glue.

Paul