IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

John Kristoff <jtk@depaul.edu> Mon, 13 November 2017 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jtk@depaul.edu>
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 DA523129417 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:52:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 zk_RSaqaE_8n for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:52:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aharp.iorc.depaul.edu (aharp.iorc.depaul.edu [IPv6:2620:0:2250:2115:c0a7:18f5:bca1:ba92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D03A1289B5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:52:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p50.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aharp.iorc.depaul.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F69A1D84; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:52:35 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:52:35 -0600
From: John Kristoff <jtk@depaul.edu>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20171113085235.2fddd72a@p50.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <c66000fbd9174916a1142650298c7632@XCASPRD01-DFT.dpu.depaul.edu>
References: <20171112075445.tf2ut5dxzhhnqe7l@mx4.yitter.info> <20171112131831.GA32208@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20171113014445.ncldrwnuuvluecx7@mx4.yitter.info> <5A08FD96.8030907@redbarn.org> <20171113020736.ga7rzgst2hurb56h@mx4.yitter.info> <5A09068A.3030206@redbarn.org> <c66000fbd9174916a1142650298c7632@XCASPRD01-DFT.dpu.depaul.edu>
Reply-To: jtk@aharp.iorc.depaul.edu
X-Trump: Sucks
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/FoaU7Tfn1OVEV9VWu_UkJtpQMgc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)
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, 13 Nov 2017 14:52:38 -0000

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 03:26:41 +0000
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> This is quite a helpful response, thanks.  I wonder whether more of it
> ought to go in discussion (or a new draft),

I'd suggest a new draft be produced with which discussion could ensue.
The references Paul cites would not be clear to me that closer excludes
pointing up towards the root for instance. In fact, I would have thought
this is precisely what closer would mean from a pure graph/routing
perspective in certain scenarios.

REFUSED does not seem ideal to me either, but what if anything might be
better is probably ripe discussion in a new draft.

Paul, are you willing and able to work on a draft for this?  For what
it's worth I'd be supportive of that work.

John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email