IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [internet-drafts@ietf.org: New Version Notification for draft-edmonds-dnsop-capabilities-00.txt]

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 03 July 2017 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 F1CF812F3D5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 09:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 mc20iw03ZJzd for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 09:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 5205D129B77 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 09:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [169.254.117.148] (142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id v63GmfPq045563 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 09:48:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176] claimed to be [169.254.117.148]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 09:49:23 -0700
Message-ID: <751C4965-0C2A-4BE8-ADA3-545564ACA35E@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170703035355.DA71A7D6C89D@rock.dv.isc.org>
References: <20170702213334.dm5olfbvkpbxdq3m@mycre.ws> <20170703035355.DA71A7D6C89D@rock.dv.isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/FeF0j9rf7QLtCS9KSSHvs2KyvVw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [internet-drafts@ietf.org: New Version Notification for draft-edmonds-dnsop-capabilities-00.txt]
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 03 Jul 2017 16:49:27 -0000

On 2 Jul 2017, at 20:53, Mark Andrews wrote:

> There are three things that made it hard to deploy new features.
>
> 1) Firewall vendor shipping firewalls with ridiculously strict rules
>    with zero evidence that they are needed.
>
> 2) Misimplementation of STD 13 and RFC 2671 by nameserver vendors.
>
> 3) Unknown EDNS option behaviour was not well defined by RFC 2671,
>    this is addressed in RFC 6891.
>
> 1 and 2 made it impossible to do a clean update from RFC 2671 to
> RFC 6891 which tightened the unknown EDNS option behaviour.  Proper
> implementation of RFC 2671 would have allowed the EDNS version 1
> to be used to signal that RFC 6891 unknown option behaviour is
> required.
>
> I don't see how adding a capabilities option will help here when
> the primary problem is bad code.

I do. The fact that some middleboxes and servers have bad code doesn't 
mean that all of them do.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email