IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 09 November 2015 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 306CE1B807A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 09:34:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=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 fmf7DakHSXhM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 09:34:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 47A5B1B8086 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 09:34:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.32.60.128] (50-1-98-110.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id tA9HYHKL043212 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Nov 2015 10:34:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-110.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.110] claimed to be [10.32.60.128]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 09:34:17 -0800
Message-ID: <E78EC567-FE6A-41B5-92DF-084145171455@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1511091651330.25050@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <5635CF1A.4030803@gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1511091301260.25050@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <A8A3F4DA-EE53-4BA4-9EF7-6DCB6120350B@vpnc.org> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1511091651330.25050@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.2r5141)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/BX1EXHbeAC-Q1S6GmTF2PCh6RbE>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 17:34:44 -0000

On 9 Nov 2015, at 8:55, Tony Finch wrote:

> Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>> On 9 Nov 2015, at 5:02, Tony Finch wrote:
>>>
>>> The rationale for this document is still completely wrong. It does 
>>> not
>>> provide any reduction in latency compared to the existing DNS 
>>> protocol.
>>
>> Is that really true? That is, I assume that you mean the latency with 
>> this
>> proposal is due to the recursive still having to go fetch all the 
>> pieces.
>
> No, I mean stub/recursive latency.

OK, but...

>> However, if the recursive already has some or all of the answers in 
>> its cache,
>> this proposal reduces the latency compared to the stub asking for 
>> each piece.
>
> No, as I have explained at least twice before.
>
> With the current DNS protocol, a stub resolver can get all the records 
> it
> needs to validate a response in 1RTT, by sending multiple concurrent
> queries for all the possible delegation points in the QNAME.

I'm confused. How does the stub know all of those ahead of time?

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email