Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft [draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-04.txt]

Ólafur Guðmundsson <olafur@cloudflare.com> Thu, 09 February 2017 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <olafur@cloudflare.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 8BF4F129AB7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 07:30:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cloudflare.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 Qp1VOMpmkALD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 07:30:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x230.google.com (mail-wr0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::230]) (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 09A8F129ABD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 07:29:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x230.google.com with SMTP id o16so86264202wra.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 07:29:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ak94DYcXKe7Gm1CertAuJiyR1aFWuKDNI6wGC2LOtHE=; b=rHrOgLOExDBc0ijKa8aO7o83H+aqZ/IvDmioclEGzEfGmsx8RdSbMwI7UcVgyvleio KieMWPS9B1NZ2RCi09Z1tSC/OxDfJt2dLGuZPyIPOSCYx6aBuGwTas8yQxNqFl1Qnv6Y Cy+HRPFfOWShdyISV+FLJFr69R6HZTvx/VEIU=
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=ak94DYcXKe7Gm1CertAuJiyR1aFWuKDNI6wGC2LOtHE=; b=rGITry7m+u+3XXF5t9HncBJoRxGPe8FKWtsuZHE6c+X6lw6UeRy4uGCA424NrkcCV8 dmU1uwEF8W2QnG9CUk4VVTT7wqMTRI3/7fg/Tq9kh/R+1rUC73Ehx77+HygWO8f4mc3Y TKepwR4kQn6vjKXzePq4fp/V4q4gNFmlz3k4BJASUcy6s4Kra6q9vtEY1HKBMof4FXUP EM5Q9VWyrIp6xAsbCWPBerYZFCeqsLKCvdK32WEzeBBuwTou04h+ueppa1OAWwIgsmFv WJ7TrePdaVv8ljdAPldYSgVLz9uMKsMKM/0PisjD4tf8cakKAjLlgPKSpFg0swpKpr7q /nRw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mQtK3XHdKvsIsTazcHhPEKe3D+TDB3WLoxR6ujVjREgo3ZzogUr39mFIt/xSvRK80mPy7O6f1nLiI97PbP
X-Received: by 10.223.161.130 with SMTP id u2mr3915211wru.127.1486654191261; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 07:29:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.164.194 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 07:29:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <A05B583C828C614EBAD1DA920D92866BD06D3976@PODCWMBXEX501.ctl.intranet>
References: <148661979638.4286.4234665114055399732.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN6NTqxwETnX2wP=NAinW8-4+t4FMpHCma-B-Tce=f-LLLff0g@mail.gmail.com> <A05B583C828C614EBAD1DA920D92866BD06D3976@PODCWMBXEX501.ctl.intranet>
From: =?UTF-8?B?w5NsYWZ1ciBHdcOwbXVuZHNzb24=?= <olafur@cloudflare.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 07:29:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CAN6NTqz6vwYsZj68qJyCv8i6Z5o+CDF78tOVsSagL3+B5BLOhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Woodworth, John R" <John.Woodworth@centurylink.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045f3ed4f974d305481aa6ca
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/E926dqaP5qOJ8O6-kVfP3cUWhZY>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, "Ballew, Dean" <Dean.Ballew@centurylink.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft [draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-04.txt]
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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 Feb 2017 15:30:12 -0000

John,

Thanks for the review
you are spot on, I should not edit while watching a soccer game :-(

I will post an updated version in the next few days.

how about for section 4.1:
I was trying to cover the case where the RRSET selected has Multiple
RRSIG's not

About 4.2.
Implementation may choose this when it can, if it can not for a zone then
fall back on 4.1

as for the guidance, I tried, but there are strong opinions out there and
.....

Olafur



On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Woodworth, John R <
John.Woodworth@centurylink.com> wrote:

> Olafur,
>
> This is my first draft review so apologies if it seems harsh, I
> really like the concept of this draft.
>
>
> Comments:
>
> --
> Section 4.1 "Select one RRSet mode" -
>
> The section including "...choose a small one(s) to..." seems
> confusing, a single RRSet is expected why the possibility of
> multiple RRsets?
>
>
> --
> Section 4.2 "Synthesised HINFO RRset" -
>
> I do not follow the section including "...query includes DO=1...".
> Should the implementation fall back to the one-RRSet-mode?  If the
> only RRSet returned is a synthesized HINFO one, what does the
> returned RRSIG correspond to?
>
>
> --
> General -
>
> I would personally like to see more direction for implementers
> provided in the draft, e.g. expected configurable features.
> I realize this is a matter of personal taste.
>
>
> Thanks and good luck,
> John
>
> -- THESE ARE THE DROIDS TO WHOM I REFER:
> This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain
> confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this
> communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
> received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender
> by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any
> attachments.
>