Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.txt [and 1 more messages]

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Wed, 06 March 2019 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.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 51C7F131162 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 12:40:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 jsCT-ZtTgWvt for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 12:40:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-f47.google.com (mail-wm1-f47.google.com [209.85.128.47]) (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 AF26A13110A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 12:40:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-f47.google.com with SMTP id x10so7145892wmg.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 12:40:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Yr1obqEf36gdr+8W+F5/f/D8Dic1tzNryuYSJ9HgTiM=; b=Ohjs2Grph4EyddXDXaBPc7lQ/XCOlHvhEeRs1JZAkPZ4AaefvM+asbQ3fCRB2h0dcf iZaVdDygt83MDlwg2VfFXwbKI1MDYdYTd4iNFWBasfA+WDd13ZOn/n3H0Jm6WvUJf+++ EjLPCeeklvgQHIO4fzNXLBel6ni4RWsyqYA/5wKCgx+8ZIy/hHpjg6T5Tqx7OC7jTYP+ Ey7y48c+oTKZSP/tFQ/uPaPeU91ug5tM03qwS7Ne6fJyZBwr858YJ0uYC8foFw4OFWqe P5hLIhje/5sgnBqtQZmC0EdM9HtVyD9zWRd6xLJrHnFvrUU1cB7dXKaF2s7sDDjKBEgO 7wSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXcXi9YzQuGslqvkxsx2IShlut3J1efeqb0BS4sBC8SIFVHn9tV gpS5UiyWNMOunuF0PWubhWpO7/3rKAmOKBPKM3topwj1
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx94ZO+ECQ824+PRWv577fQCcSBW1AQcvgC7PEwRDrUSRmFiufBEG4IHmr2jYnnoWhZEVmMCg4kAPfGJRUCIhE=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:44:: with SMTP id 65mr3308119wma.127.1551904847853; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 12:40:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155094804613.28045.8648150477440044197@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+nkc8DvZr84E46vna91iBsJ2uSVsda1cCzyTNx9C_J85uKW1w@mail.gmail.com> <23673.27866.35423.674591@gro.dd.org> <FD2C124D-BD1E-41AE-B4AB-007E451A32D6@icann.org> <53DB1048-2B9C-43CA-A6FD-C423DE0254B3@icann.org> <23673.39951.530675.858654@gro.dd.org>
In-Reply-To: <23673.39951.530675.858654@gro.dd.org>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 12:40:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqdFCSQas3QFvB2pKxu5d16yoNYaJSxrWU-zdjEkXevf7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002e7ced058373015d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/EWerkwNxKZY-2c2M85BtP9d4SWM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.txt [and 1 more messages]
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: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 20:40:54 -0000

At Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:54:39 -0500,
Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> wrote:

> > I'm not sure a standards track document that updates RFC 1034/1035
> > should be recommending a minimum TTL.
>
> As previously noted, we're making no such recommendation and that will
> be clarified.  The first definition of "resolution recheck timer" in
> section 5 does already say that it regards failed lookups, but it
> seems that adding that distinction later is also warranted.
>
> > The document is actively confusing about recommendations.
>
> Before we go pushing around whole sections of text, could anyone
> please comment on whether they find it "actively confusing about
> recommendations"?

FWIW: "actively confusing" may be too strong, but I also found it
confusing on my fresh re-read of serve-stale-03 in that the "example
method" section contains normative descriptions using RFC2119
keywords.

So I support Paul's proposal:

>> Proposal: Put all recommendations in Section 4, and talk about them
>> (instead of introducing them) in the other sections. That way, a
>> lazy developer who only reads Section 4 will know all the
>> recommendations.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya