IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-song-atr-large-resp

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Mon, 21 January 2019 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.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 48C7512DD85 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 04:50:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 IvYdqXy9KY8x for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 04:50:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B133124B0C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 04:50:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.20.20] (unknown [185.164.212.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39226892C6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:50:00 +0000 (UTC)
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <BCACF554-8BE6-49BC-B75A-BCED776F5189@NLnetLabs.nl> <4A75C4E3-F74F-46DB-9A8A-879C0BB79190@powerdns.com>
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <8e71d79a-6fd7-00f4-e995-4013a3f501ff@redbarn.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:49:58 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/6.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A75C4E3-F74F-46DB-9A8A-879C0BB79190@powerdns.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JdhkwdWT2hGzIwfVx6CrX15KCfk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-song-atr-large-resp
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: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:50:04 -0000


Peter van Dijk wrote on 2019-01-21 11:22:
> Hello,
> 
> On 18 Jan 2019, at 18:55, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-song-atr-large-resp
> 
> I oppose adoption. ...
likewise. we should not avoid fragmentation in this particular way. that 
is, we can use persistent TCP, or we can avoid sending large messages by 
shaping their contents better (smaller signatures, less additional data).

in fact i would prefer to embrace fragmentation and fix it. so, in 
addition to my reasoning above, i am also biased against the goal 
itself. (i say this not to persuade, but for full disclosure.)

in ~1998, the IETF DNSIND WG persuaded me to remove the MD bit from 
EDNS0, and the reasons given then (see the archives) are all still valid 
today, especially given that IPv6 made fragmentation worse not better 
than it was in V4, and it was pretty broken in V4, the absolute value of 
this negative bar was rather high.

-- 
P Vixie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email