Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-09: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 08 December 2016 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 74404129EF0; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 07:15:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896] autolearn=ham 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 7pMpvKDKKdN9; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 07:15:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 4BE87129EF1; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 07:15:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.21] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id uB8FFNOI039726 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:15:24 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.21]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 09:15:25 -0600
Message-ID: <475FD01B-B2F8-422F-831D-4568AAF1D7AD@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <339F67B8-B76F-469C-9E22-8EAB8B2E672B@vpnc.org>
References: <148046227837.11642.8747586791761273945.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <339F67B8-B76F-469C-9E22-8EAB8B2E672B@vpnc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5310)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ErGgakjpjWfIkL0lzI1lFJFsQKI>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-09: (with COMMENT)
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, 08 Dec 2016 15:15:28 -0000

On 6 Dec 2016, at 13:08, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> In section 3.1, is there a reason the requirement in paragraph 2 does 
> not
>> get a 2119 keywords, when the requirement in the first paragraph 
>> does?
>> They seem similar in impact.
>
>
> The paragraph is:
>    If a priming query does not get a response, the recursive resolver
>    needs to retry the query with a different target address from the
>    configuration.
> The "needs to" is there because it describes the steps given in RFC 
> 1035. It does not create a new requirement.

Works for me, thanks!

Ben.