Re: [DNSOP] draft idea : rfc_bcp_no-mail-loss-during-ns-changes.txt
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 09 May 2019 02:44 UTC
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 93E0C12004D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 19:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=ld++RDHp; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=HJ0THjEL
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 LyhPvKAUA-0w for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 19:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 AB6FC12004F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2019 19:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 52810 invoked from network); 9 May 2019 02:44:25 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=ce46.5cd39409.k1905; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=Yi6kWOofAjhRClQHpYW7XMP5EXUvWxXlUrwZVSAhaDc=; b=ld++RDHpLE13bI5BBmuU//LIUF9JjY7/ORdAr3Qy9ooNaBXgcivwj9TlcJHzsTSCLTHBVA5SoJe5p6aa3NdWTrkqPIR8vvjxHLzmZP+UVJNeEKDe7d8zUdtFU6yADzQMgNFgfXoD25wkoX2AP9FxGovDRldVcDFgoqh9SiA1x91i081B3z9y0zRAGzgKQ7PPRbxHsU/xl2A05mE165DY4G/Zny7feAPplZ7Ct1rdAUS29BhB2vfoUUusEByIBrUD
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=ce46.5cd39409.k1905; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=Yi6kWOofAjhRClQHpYW7XMP5EXUvWxXlUrwZVSAhaDc=; b=HJ0THjELqPW6PrXjduTZND0sBzIcagi5611b3Gb/IAM07txqK+UXbtAYi+c2EPsmnkeo95IOs9aCpL+mCaTBgfTQm1hgLQxU7RCpp3DWmbyCQj8BDzQ6C5WbJViVlSgOlIUDi6IbdTprTLoqc4T3kpoxfpNscO2aFPk7048mq62ishh7Gzj5bTi04+zeAE8bIcg+5oTx7mWUaIF1dyMCV3RDShv1GnUow8zDHs/aasd0hYjCB7S4Q1Ah+H52204q
Received: from ary.qy ([64.246.232.221]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP; 09 May 2019 02:44:25 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4F218201389E26; Wed, 8 May 2019 22:44:24 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 22:44:24 -0400
Message-Id: <20190509024425.4F218201389E26@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: jabley@hopcount.ca
In-Reply-To: <CAJhMdTOpTgKA-hQZF3agrcVkdjpkoAyAFpgN4RxFWdkwwa=RWw@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/9uVPSYhsUkt6CFa5E1ze4EBB0gE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft idea : rfc_bcp_no-mail-loss-during-ns-changes.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: Thu, 09 May 2019 02:44:31 -0000
In article <CAJhMdTOpTgKA-hQZF3agrcVkdjpkoAyAFpgN4RxFWdkwwa=RWw@mail.gmail.com> you write: >More generally, proposals for new conventions that require changes in both >requestor and respondent in the DNS are difficult to imagine ever being >deployed. ... Agreed. Also anything that expects to make a flash cut from one set of DNS data to another is doomed to disappointment due to caches, network delays, and lost packets. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly