Return-Path: 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 A9C5213234E for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:46:52 -0700 (PDT) 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 qjEO-XhPDXlR for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oj.bangj.com (amt0.gin.ntt.net [129.250.11.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97DC6132332 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.10.126] (unknown [107.13.249.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oj.bangj.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 396C925B83; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 16:41:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Pusateri Message-Id: <041D0F94-7FBC-4F7E-B200-6A5EECB8776F@bangj.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_258E14C8-0ADE-442D-B6FB-46E9CA056A1E" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 16:46:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <54eea882-7c45-67e8-b50d-8a0558ad8236@nic.cz> Cc: Ted Lemon , dnsop WG To: =?utf-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= References: <148944868965.20421.13262969145873649331@ietfa.amsl.com> <235049030.6432.1500569125325.JavaMail.zimbra@nic.cz> <20170720165043.g5e7jprg2hmoanf2@mx4.yitter.info> <697159393.6506.1500569982281.JavaMail.zimbra@nic.cz> <20170720170907.gksdgic47juhbn7e@mx4.yitter.info> <54eea882-7c45-67e8-b50d-8a0558ad8236@nic.cz> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-02.txt X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:46:53 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_258E14C8-0ADE-442D-B6FB-46E9CA056A1E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Aug 18, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Petr =C5=A0pa=C4=8Dek = wrote: >=20 > We can certainly call TLVs "extension" but renaming it does not remove > the fundamental problem: > TLVs are largely incompatible with the code we already have widely > implemented and deployed everywhere in all the DNS implementations and > tools. As a consequence, it is increasing engineering cost for all > involved parties. >=20 There were two main reasons we chose to use TLVs instead of the EDNS(0) = RR format for Session Signaling (soon to be called DNS Stateful = Operations) and it was quite intentional: 1. Given the fact that we were using a new Opcode, we had the = opportunity to change the packet format for the better (at the = suggestion of Mark Andrews). There has been a lot of people in DNSOP = saying EDNS(0) OPT RRs were a mistake. To be fair, some people like it = or are agnostic but we=E2=80=99ve heard more complaints than support. = Using a new Opcode created an unusual and infrequent opportunity to = switch to TLVs without a backlash since all the code would be doing new = things. 2. Since EDNS(0) is per packet and not per session, and Session = Signaling is defined per session over a reliable, ordered transport, we = think it will be less confusing and simpler for implementors to have = separate code to deal with session semantics over the existing per = packet datagram semantics that don=E2=80=99t mean the same thing. * When I say we, I am saying what I understand to be the consensus of = the authors. I don=E2=80=99t mean to speak directly for the other = authors and I will let them correct me if there is disagreement that I = am not aware of. Thanks, Tom --Apple-Mail=_258E14C8-0ADE-442D-B6FB-46E9CA056A1E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On Aug 18, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Petr =C5=A0pa=C4=8Dek <petr.spacek@nic.cz> = wrote:

We can certainly call TLVs "extension" = but renaming it does not remove
the fundamental = problem:
TLVs are largely incompatible with the = code we already have widely
implemented and deployed = everywhere in all the DNS implementations and
tools. As a consequence, it is increasing = engineering cost for all
involved parties.

There were two = main reasons we chose to use TLVs instead of the EDNS(0) RR format for = Session Signaling (soon to be called DNS Stateful Operations) and it was = quite intentional:

1. Given the fact = that we were using a new Opcode, we had the opportunity to change the = packet format for the better (at the suggestion of Mark Andrews). There = has been a lot of people in DNSOP saying EDNS(0) OPT RRs were a mistake. = To be fair, some people like it or are agnostic but we=E2=80=99ve heard = more complaints than support. Using a new Opcode created an unusual and = infrequent opportunity to switch to TLVs without a backlash since all = the code would be doing new things.

2.= Since EDNS(0) is per packet and not per session, and Session Signaling = is defined per session over a reliable, ordered transport, we think it = will be less confusing and simpler for implementors to have separate = code to deal with session semantics over the existing per packet = datagram semantics that don=E2=80=99t mean the same thing.

* When I say we, I am saying what I understand to = be the consensus of the authors. I don=E2=80=99t mean to speak directly = for the other authors and I will let them correct me if there is = disagreement that I am not aware of.

Thanks,
Tom


= --Apple-Mail=_258E14C8-0ADE-442D-B6FB-46E9CA056A1E--