Return-Path: 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 E4E56128DF2 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:41:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 ow4bgcJ7T2pm for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:41:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9300B1243F6 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:41:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2600:1011:b04d:6a9a:e9c8:25a9:9bb0:78b0] (unknown [IPv6:2600:1011:b04d:6a9a:e9c8:25a9:9bb0:78b0]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C486661FA2; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 05:41:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 05:41:04 +0000 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <23051.52473.880861.251236@gro.dd.org> References: <150940017764.7814.6739838599217498076@ietfa.amsl.com> <23040.33307.69754.133713@gro.dd.org> <23050.45832.787089.325014@gro.dd.org> <23051.40720.908131.277454@gro.dd.org> <23051.47926.538193.725450@gro.dd.org> <5A0BBDD7.2070406@redbarn.org> <23051.52473.880861.251236@gro.dd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: dnsop@ietf.org,Dave Lawrence ,IETF DNSOP WG From: P Vix Message-ID: <8D809B23-8A29-483F-9962-4A2E7C426184@redbarn.org> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-00.txt X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 05:41:10 -0000 On November 14, 2017 9:13:29 PM PST, Dave Lawrence wrote: >Paul Vixie writes: >> i'm of the opposite view=2E we should not change behaviour without=20 >> explicit signaling=2E if that means it takes 10 years to reach 50%=20 >> penetration, like EDNS did, then that's the cost of doing business=2E > >Just so I'm clear, am I understanding correctly from this that you >believe a recursive server should only fall back to stale data from >cache if the request explicitly included a staleness option? Yes=2E I know that coherency does not rank high in a cdn operator's priori= ty queue, but the dns has other users also=2E >I ask because Bob's comment that started this thread was exploring >being able to signal staleness back when OPT was included in the >request but the option being defined by the draft wasn't included=2E Ah=2E >To me this makes three different positions we're trying to reach >consensus about, for allowing fallback to stale either: > >1) when the request explicitly signals it is ok; >2) when the request groks EDNS but might or might not understand > a staleness option; or >3) in all cases=2E > >My current understanding is that you and Paul are of position 1, while >I'm at 3=2E At first glance 2 would appear to be pretty nearly the same >as 3 as far as its permissive toward unaware clients, but >significantly it does at least provide signal you could still access >via protocol debugging (dig, tcpdump, etc)=2E I expect you to implement 3=2E I expect us to document 1=2E 2 would be chaos, helping nobody=2E >_______________________________________________ >DNSOP mailing list >DNSOP@ietf=2Eorg >https://www=2Eietf=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/dnsop --=20 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E