Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dnsop-update-timeout-00.txt

Tom Pusateri <> Fri, 24 August 2018 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DBFF130E2C for <>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 12:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l6OF-OOh3J-8 for <>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 12:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1E23130EB3 for <>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 12:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 096F92FA8; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 14:58:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Pusateri <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_23FFBEA5-5FBD-44A5-96C9-F47F7D948746"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:02:50 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: dnsop WG <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dnsop-update-timeout-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 19:03:20 -0000

> On Aug 24, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Tom Pusateri < <>> wrote:
>> It seems odd to take the position that the authoritative server shouldn’t need to clean up stale entries because it assumes the client will do it for you. I can’t imagine you taking this position under any other scenario.
> The issue here is that this is a pretty major change to the DNS.   If we really want something this heavy, we should have a good reason for wanting it.   That's all.
> The idea that some unnamed DHCP server somewhere doesn't do the right thing with cleaning up stale entries doesn't seem like a good enough reason, particularly given that the DHCID record tags the thing as having been added by the DHCP server, and considering that there are several open source implementations that do automatically delete records when the lease expires.
> I think it might make sense to just wait on this.  I agree that it's an interesting idea for completeness, but we don't have enough operational experience yet to know whether we have a problem worth solving.   With respect to the DHCP use case, I'm certain we don't.
> The good news is that if we do need this, you've done a design, and we also have Paul's design to look at.   So if operational experience a few years down the road shows us that we have a gap here, we can move on it pretty easily. I just don't see any reason to rush into it.

Ok, great. Hopefully others have some use cases they can share. In the mean time, back to learning Rust…