IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ondřej Surý <ondrej.sury@nic.cz> Thu, 20 July 2017 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ondrej.sury@nic.cz>
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 CD6C5131945 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 QoqPYdVnXcKa for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (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 1DA65127B60 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.rfc1925.org (calcifer.labs.nic.cz [217.31.192.138]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A52E61111; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:59:42 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1500569982; bh=anr4HMBuVhGQsvQeqy5lIG4fIvg+awM4pGIr9gRW/r4=; h=Date:From:To; b=ZFZAfsghsr0bVdeLfcc/UM15jMXKwQXku40uIY3yj7RPC3Tj3ll+CE15DJK2zhE0+ puT7CwSVzhcSJ4/gcO04jnUoBkWtXpIzB2PA96EeARs8VXNK+oVazUjk9pu4OeBarh aVZrbGrY1BFwUpxAGVWLyHesRFCc1hqYMehww23Q=
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:59:42 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?utf-8?Q?Ond=C5=99ej_Sur=C3=BD?= <ondrej.sury@nic.cz>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <697159393.6506.1500569982281.JavaMail.zimbra@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20170720165043.g5e7jprg2hmoanf2@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <148944868965.20421.13262969145873649331@ietfa.amsl.com> <235049030.6432.1500569125325.JavaMail.zimbra@nic.cz> <20170720165043.g5e7jprg2hmoanf2@mx4.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Originating-IP: [217.31.192.138]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.7.9_GA_1794 (ZimbraWebClient - GC59 (Linux)/8.7.9_GA_1794)
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-02.txt
Thread-Index: JeFeLvEP3kkyAPQuue8CSNKiMKeGGg==
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/A3jY10mtTIFfIo-rwxis-m1hMNE>
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 16:59:46 -0000

> But it's certainly another step along the way to DNSbis by accident.

Would it be useful to make it not "by accident"?

That's why I have a love-hate relationship with TLV inside DNS messages.

I have a couple questions:

a) make DNS over TCP/TLS sessions without TLV suck less?

b) make this draft DNS-SD only, so it can fast forward...

c) use the changed paradigm to work on DNSbis without the accident part?

Cheers,
--
 Ondřej Surý -- Technical Fellow
 --------------------------------------------
 CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o.    --     Laboratoře CZ.NIC
 Milesovska 5, 130 00 Praha 3, Czech Republic
 mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz    https://nic.cz/
 --------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
> To: "dnsop" <dnsop@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, 20 July, 2017 18:50:44
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-02.txt

> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 06:45:25PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> Is this useful for DNS at all, or is this targeted at DNS-SD only?
> 
> I can think of at least one way it would be useful.  Large
> authoritatives often have a clear population of query sources that ask
> a lot -- the "top talkers".  It would be excellent if those clients
> stood up TCP connections and kept them in place because then (1) the
> server could treat their TCP connections as long-lived and (2) the
> server could treat new UDP packets from those IPs as suspect.  The
> current TCP handling makes this mostly suck, and the
> session-signalling approach makes it suck less.
> 
> But it's certainly another step along the way to DNSbis by accident.
> 
> A
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email