Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: (with COMMENT)

Ólafur Guðmundsson <olafur@cloudflare.com> Wed, 12 September 2018 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <olafur@cloudflare.com>
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 90C16130EC8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.031
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.031 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cloudflare.com
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 n8vsYCYkcgXV for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x235.google.com (mail-wm0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B157130ED7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x235.google.com with SMTP id 207-v6so3976682wme.5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=t9Qt1SMiqAPPFud1+xh+Z6i2mvjy3AN7As1o3uHvdEc=; b=iVULCPpjI8vzBgfdSS2OTd4yaZe329KElTuWriSgze+oEOvV4IDkpwGfgCfLv2ZH2q Lq785QbR9HPeGyCPAPwAypmwoA1piEDtspcH3kqi9V/C71g12tLdKQ/Dn1RN+I6mxyCO 7nXE7qauR5ow8r4+S8WdJrZl5jPiDk8H9ggWU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=t9Qt1SMiqAPPFud1+xh+Z6i2mvjy3AN7As1o3uHvdEc=; b=Xm7eIskLepHyrMzhm9QRUEG1j4B5quYiYQ1l5ZR0EW70HuWKqIbQCU6iGxGLh16lwu 96G2jWN0tjveK1djTA0f8QVs9PsEyZmExn3Fl0HgxDbKN5MjY773RfNw0ieQW14ztA7k /o8SfBF14QzIS/RuWaKwI9Rn3Qh3MCD8Kg3u6csuX8OhJ61ZaFza50jfSec/CX/C0piq TEUr82mwRxdH4rYzBebeajbuDDYOmO9kPPuk3MeRJaTbnAsNfABuRdAgQUAK7Cfruq8m 0Jhfwn8yfYSRtJxr7SnXxW7EJQGJDbkprOT6lsN25dQ8xztboEixksYXkdFyIr0fNAPt 0PXQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BxmvfpjYo6kBFG4ns590xyYffWFHGv2TpJV96Ir/PYpOktHMVL ubwidgBeMagcSsyyHHQOsScnYWfnrWQf3yzAoL3uYw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0Vdagxp1rKKJDRMgf5UdlfGkTGr9WxQCncGatG5qZON/2iISx02P+NKnN9uW46DJVKsn1aREkjsoXWTar1S+PXMo=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:d0c7:: with SMTP id h190-v6mr2986518wmg.107.1536789395362; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:adf:e451:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <153662206042.16097.17276434244111235876.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <153662206042.16097.17276434244111235876.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?w5NsYWZ1ciBHdcOwbXVuZHNzb24=?= <olafur@cloudflare.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:56:34 +1100
Message-ID: <CAN6NTqy958BmJZB5xGzj57jNhrZNB5RJjdtm++wU8bO8iRkEoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any@ietf.org, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop-chairs <dnsop-chairs@ietf.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000001765b0575b3aafa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/KMXPsdtRXDTd1_EIMFOdiwz3qeE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 21:56:50 -0000

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:

> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for the work that went into the mechanism, and especially to the
> early
> deployers who found issues to be addressed. I have a small handful of
> comments
> that the authors may wish to address prior to advancing the document to
> publication.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
> §4.1:
>
> >  A DNS responder which receives an ANY query MAY decline to provide a
> >  conventional ANY response
>
> Nit: "A DNS responder that receives..."
>
Noted


>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
>

> §4.2:
>
> >  The CPU field of the HINFO RDATA SHOULD be set to RFCXXXX
>
> Then, in §5:
>
> >  A DNS initiator MAY suppress queries with QTYPE=ANY in the event that
> >  the local cache contains a matching HINFO resource record with
> >  RDATA.CPU field, as described in Section 4.
>
> This looks like it's asking for a comparison. If such is the case, I think
> you
> need to indicate whether the value being compared is done so in a
> case-sensitive
> fashion. You probably also want to be pretty explicit about the literal
> string
> value to be used (e.g., be clear that the value doesn't contain a space).
>
>
Good point
it should just return the HINFO no matter what is in it
when we started with this document we had no numbers on usage of HINFO
but now we know it historical use is "almost none"


> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
> §4.2:
>
> >  The
> >  specific value used is hence a familiar balance when choosing TTL for
> >  any RR in any zone, and be specified according to local policy.
>
> Nit: This sentence appears to be missing a word. Perhaps "...and will be
> specified..." or similar.
>
> Noted


> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
> §4.2:
>
> >  In particular, systems SHOULD NOT rely upon the HINFO
> >  RDATA described in this seection to distinguish between synthesised
> >  and non-synthesised HINFO RRSets.
>
> Nit: "section"
>
> More substantive comment: Since the CPU field SHOULD indicate this
> document,
> implementations could reasonably infer that the HINFO RRSet is synthesized
> based
> on its value, right? That seems worth mentioning here.
>

overkill


>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
> §5:
>
> >  A DNS initiator which sends a query with QTYPE=ANY and receives a
>
> Nit: "...initiator that sends..."
>
>
> noted




-- 
Ólafur Gudmundsson | Engineering Director
www.cloudflare.com blog.cloudflare.com