IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-02.txt

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 20 July 2017 16:53 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 0F265131461 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 yW5ESwsIgU22 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x233.google.com (mail-pg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::233]) (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 6185A129B15 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x233.google.com with SMTP id s4so17146925pgr.5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:53:26 -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=+orfRfHxcSRGKlemGTgXv8/1gZR6Esr1FjbuzV8MVVU=; b=0YhuZanz2UFEolxxrHkM0BmWM5Qn15QI9doy21PIxk/gPf+f4BADuGYeGKiVEP+5VZ RKE2hKxWIKIMVqKODuAvXhwYNPxb3+5TrSC4EgYyy3h1MOQw4Qu+EYjFl+xoahvwwO/r B24PhLLHhFywU+qP9UluCA1N660kJXhSymzMpWvKukJuCxVMBp6ANvuBraV7wJAc1QRq 3lzL+8uxOptpy3bWmzlAsw7bPyka4P1+w0pmoDKw99GvB/Y3L7d/xxdDxPrXmFyba1eY izSnPp+8LfjB/d2quNZViUNfuQZq5OPPFBx+7hd5MNhNausehHGD4vM6spbqPGi8VaEt s6yw==
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=+orfRfHxcSRGKlemGTgXv8/1gZR6Esr1FjbuzV8MVVU=; b=fhSRF2i+ZrE4iSq3dci7KyRZ231Zwur/+AbAxRbmjND04Q64p/1XO07EOPez9yfp2U 2lA+ZKA2YZQ0sRuOEhZQckQJGQVgW7aNRIgLfMLZfPqCrx0VwaCmqBTyUa9O+PrYrIZA 2bTTsCHp8X/wPF5IiS4Vg7kWtcEaugP1+bZGQbReRZMpRIMWHVftct7sAt9eYezVFgJz GaWHeY82r7Zv2veVb0T9wa0TddYgo0Rpn3zg1zyTn8LPCoy/voiXB6+zOeRJCprLgJ5l hopvc0T/1qEvaswi0fBCny14vFs8/LGc+FxsIjOqGQpadX8EyfIwKtUKTvup5in1vYfd N/kQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1137/aGrgxwOdF8DjlS+CggYPDMDlQr1nJczWl+w8VjPVBBR+JY9 LaLvm3ic0oeotDRAsDwAqNnNOdNTGiNU
X-Received: by 10.99.43.5 with SMTP id r5mr4495429pgr.135.1500569605848; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.181.42 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <235049030.6432.1500569125325.JavaMail.zimbra@nic.cz>
References: <148944868965.20421.13262969145873649331@ietfa.amsl.com> <235049030.6432.1500569125325.JavaMail.zimbra@nic.cz>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:52:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=mQ_oxPqJv2QbiHHq0F2pzC0PgsK1OeCCSKy=aC4N4xQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ondřej Surý <ondrej.sury@nic.cz>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1146e2e051561f0554c296b3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/9t59e3Us492lbCtl-Qp5aznjieI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:53:28 -0000

For TCP connections, being able to signal session liveness policy is useful
for DNS, not just DNSSD.   It seems likely that DNS Push is useful for
things other than DNSSD.   I think this is generally useful, not just for
DNSSD.   Rather than thinking of this as a DNSSD-specific enhancement,
think of this as an enhancement to section 4.2.2 of RFC1035.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Ondřej Surý <ondrej.sury@nic.cz> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> there's one thing I don't really understand from this draft.
>
> Is this useful for DNS at all, or is this targeted at DNS-SD only?
>
> I think this needs some explaining and perhaps a clear cut is needed.
> Although it's not mentioned anywhere in the document, the draft makes
> much more sense to me, if it would clearly state, this should be only
> used in DNS-SD sessions.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email