IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Mon, 09 November 2015 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4585B1A00BB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:55:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 BETmTN3k5vEd for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:55:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.141]) (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 CA4A11A00B1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:55:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:51123) by ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1Zvpj3-00023E-Rp (Exim 4.86_36-e07b163) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:55:25 +0000
Received: from fanf2 by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local id 1Zvpj2-0003iJ-VJ (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:55:24 +0000
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:55:24 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <A8A3F4DA-EE53-4BA4-9EF7-6DCB6120350B@vpnc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1511091651330.25050@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <5635CF1A.4030803@gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1511091301260.25050@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <A8A3F4DA-EE53-4BA4-9EF7-6DCB6120350B@vpnc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/FXY1eacFkHKmwajLAhlEV-bREz8>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:55:30 -0000

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2015, at 5:02, Tony Finch wrote:
> >
> > The rationale for this document is still completely wrong. It does not
> > provide any reduction in latency compared to the existing DNS protocol.
>
> Is that really true? That is, I assume that you mean the latency with this
> proposal is due to the recursive still having to go fetch all the pieces.

No, I mean stub/recursive latency.

> However, if the recursive already has some or all of the answers in its cache,
> this proposal reduces the latency compared to the stub asking for each piece.

No, as I have explained at least twice before.

With the current DNS protocol, a stub resolver can get all the records it
needs to validate a response in 1RTT, by sending multiple concurrent
queries for all the possible delegation points in the QNAME.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Biscay, Southeast Fitzroy: Southwesterly 5 or 6 in far north, otherwise
variable 3. Moderate or rough. Fair. Good.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email