Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-salgado-dnsop-rrserial

Joe Abley <> Tue, 01 June 2021 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6293A3A1A38 for <>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 07:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZSqaibPwNuZx for <>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 07:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B0C33A1A36 for <>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 07:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k4so14466429qkd.0 for <>; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 07:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=4WNDBW9UDCL2uieM+w5kxJnPqga1B6zdmV6B5R5+z4A=; b=CswAU+UcGrQL6ciESaJQd4hfP/x7u1ZMMQVKBYtO83iAD3aAg409Tg9cPy1h7mHsmy IY9n8m4UhDRpGaUo+8gZ7XmgV6KE8E2z4SNTp0Sz+2lpt0JrWoB0rl7fdkXduIhQpFqq PIHa9gnZo40/mHqAsBjsZjaj4iMxBDmhCaW2I=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=4WNDBW9UDCL2uieM+w5kxJnPqga1B6zdmV6B5R5+z4A=; b=kquJZjrUHaI9jKCukgDko+HWDLlMM5r0CF0mHeegJT3n2Sq5IMG8rMlawhYhdS0fq9 2G5F+7XPDUzOhvHrtSb87P/TA+/F8G7jU3m2otfHolV1pmmTQZDttRuOtYuViPK5CoaE DGsoZU8qAf3DAHn+sYix6eQhNdZrN4QX+fWuMtmlgIlTu4syJc80Ns72z4kr4n9IoWQT xAvjcGbH44bFdr8L2S0aMxck+Ka2dbAOWcIf6eAcBB4A/niuUN9kMFP+59gV4YixChRt j/Anzg32aijSPXuXbqmT7oPM6eFRaojVfL8tCOff1qGD20T0vTJDr6mn/Twrrb9jORrG Z7lQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530fdTeODinDhBCoNOc6Tu+btXO37J1DkI4R1xJZk6BOXEvZfNbY 2Qwv4lNHPJQYBe4QVtZS7H+sUg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwOSW4iUtwA20qytcSDqHzGzdd/OsjTrRdu1sWjHH2/mh1HvwzxHzNQR1bPjMectzu7uV0zEQ==
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:f106:: with SMTP id k6mr21533588qkg.274.1622558041923; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 07:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([2607:f2c0:e784:c7:cc55:eaf1:edd1:cb24]) by with ESMTPSA id k23sm11545358qkk.71.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 01 Jun 2021 07:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Abley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3A27236B-64F1-4661-9066-28B262B0F347"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 10:33:58 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20210601140553.GA68051@pepino>
Cc: Peter van Dijk <>,
To: Hugo Salgado <>
References: <> <20210531161502.GA3679@pepino> <> <> <20210601140553.GA68051@pepino>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-salgado-dnsop-rrserial
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 14:34:09 -0000

Hi Hugo,

On 1 Jun 2021, at 10:05, Hugo Salgado <> wrote:

> On 13:20 01/06, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>> I like this. I suspect defining it well for answers from resolvers to
>> clients would open up a big can of worms that could kill the draft,
>> like many other drafts that have been crushed under the sheer weight of
>> scope creep.
> Yes, fair enough. Furthermore, the draft currently avoids talking about
> "client" and uses "querier", which from the authoritative point of view
> could be a debugging human or a resolver.

Some DNS documents have used the words "initiator" and "responder" to describe the actors involved in either side of an exchange of DNS messages. That might be worth considering.

I agree that avoiding the complication of caches makes sense. Perhaps linking the behaviour to AA header bit processing would be useful. An individual DNS server might be principally a resolver by function but might also respond authoritatively (AA=1) to some queries. Those queries ought to be in-scope for your mechanism, I think.