IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 03 July 2020 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 F365A3A08D4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 15:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=sILsIg2H; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=CqQVn5vI
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 pVVoBClQIf7X for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 15:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 1ED423A08CA for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 15:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 83766 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2020 22:03:55 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=14734.5effab4b.k2007; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=iXIFDKiKAKGUJ9a64upzd3pQBt3+Q/SPXoF0UlH+srE=; b=sILsIg2HhntGD/1/ssQPXy5U7fqVet50AtiSIVciKirH1Lonqo60j9yKAVpfJ2F8F/B0sFRd3V01gbmwgNWh/qSB+6gp+ajIGxPFDYo/7CtRGtQYaW+SEjKDHxRA+xR71IqU61Wnqt55qMQUENg+cYV+OwN4PjY1MaoYasawZjXvO8GORWgEiz9rIBhZN+esZgGM5pj47EurNSzNRylitc+CSpnavzksH0Ziq4wEOsBEEjdkz7Fnos2mj6hpLF+1
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=14734.5effab4b.k2007; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=iXIFDKiKAKGUJ9a64upzd3pQBt3+Q/SPXoF0UlH+srE=; b=CqQVn5vI/4GZ4ZQ7GClQt/N+Rn7izNY5OiUNRtmhHGJE04/1xAcgZhBXyX4cSzQb1N7qosNF6SxAHD/raOjWPwf+dkJhFx/0NHiukyvDwjVeknkH4u9qYUN8lEoYhrU8Yjh+wYfzZzTiRVm3ll2Vyt5c5jylpoCur9SsN1y1zyxc3r8bTIn29bJoZ+M2+5Ew9c0WNjIcjwCY2lHNOMsgtYkbefIUfcg/tDL38BTbc2sNurqItzKJU5KEFYVOkVUA
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 03 Jul 2020 22:03:55 -0000
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 18:04:00 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2007031758360.2180@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAH1iCioMhnb=PthHEP6LB=BZBuB5CQpPzJ7h8uqYAXTjtn_8BQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH1iCirMLsLmohChQCvqiS6ra0MYK40eJsDm_B5pMXAgXRnEpg@mail.gmail.com> <20200703175942.1D0441C485EE@ary.qy> <CAH1iCioMhnb=PthHEP6LB=BZBuB5CQpPzJ7h8uqYAXTjtn_8BQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (OSX 407 2020-02-09)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Et8uGXFu8ZVwa_V2-bZo7snDD4U>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt
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: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 22:03:59 -0000

On Fri, 3 Jul 2020, Brian Dickson wrote:
> It makes clear the difference between implied and inferred.
> The flag clearly indicates that some glue which would otherwise be
> considered necessary has not been sent.

That sounds a lot like the TC flag.  I realize that some people have 
interpreted the TC flag to mean something else, but I think its actual 
meaning is pretty clear.

> Additionally, the flag would signal compliance with updated 1035, for
> starters.

This would in effect be a version number.  Our experience with version 
numbers in old protocols has not been great.

> Also, it would facilitate lower effort in figuring out if a TC is referral
> related or not, which could be important for implementers/operators doing
> large scale stuff.

I don't understand this.  Caches surely already know when a response is a 
referral.  If a referral response has TC set, in what way could that not 
be referral related?

> Most importantly, this is all about interoperability, including not just
> the wire format but the operational signaling.

Turning on bits that have been zero for 35 years doesn't have a great 
history of interop, either.  Look at the history of queries with EDNS0 
never getting a response.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email