IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 22 January 2018 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 9F2B3126C26 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:06:55 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 UAAQBPiKJJRI for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:06:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22e.google.com (mail-qt0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22e]) (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 B3B3A128959 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:06:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id d54so23105680qtd.4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:06:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=XABBn1h17h6/5noM0bjnxt8T90TB2/w5OT3KGVJuAEQ=; b=O8/J3tdD62x6ackQKmhPBE+/lkX1+ZGWFfAov/fl5XGm29wVqZDuTlVDyUrL/KAbNl 4vKRqbV4NoyhQNy7OcLvvafvmtaAr5XCXjziqGY25tYUcsIP51wsz2JnDlWheSGhBggZ rSE4lB5R9jkaXBXDe7Ici2tNkF2WMJY4oJfaL6L4IaVq8veYW96AKsLzDnFN0DeSPK4e ImSEQrneoLrVPYLU511tCalnFwcfVfFkWtlSR/deF9kd0GcQDmCbjvFBJq8PxHKfy3FG QTPCPvSFaf0pw0WoEgYRRFrLqe89jhxPIQXvVqErmr3Tc6OXItPTIbVUVPlXamb6Mrwi RiQw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=XABBn1h17h6/5noM0bjnxt8T90TB2/w5OT3KGVJuAEQ=; b=CXUz2mH9mgj5GjWKgnNqLUc9dF9BdbMJgiO0pBBfi+MZcDg7ne+GuIb0657JxQFMA2 Ft0U4MsF2kEsZt5plbUnP2U+z6jxtqLqGupZmRZfzkDID2lCyR7BDonTQEyxitcsopNq 8Y7pTiTUcMx6B6Mn8TZduuG4YiJYsy2Y4AdHEU+a55NP8CVQIT1A05tFwzhx/FxiBdkJ LU+bLTDTQhPyME3QgMkRa25hQXPEfwRPxBOcuvpESutc66qGl1lZoHYjQyTTQQBNh/iR p5Ya3NWkKvMOOmArGdPBhQCkAhsvZjOme19LE8HZtbM0sU0CE85Z7/l9lRzL2JVNZiHW kDyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcSx6eA9SCUXt3nZqCSPTR+Wc/yztDw1GCz7+MTmZdtVAzDDDzA WKPbWi9lqmJ4zKagwD6kNCY+2w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2276GArPnD+1SflgRPpybzyo5czwgFPGVILwUQ6AWrk36h4e8++hOSfNSmptiwnt14RH/iPFBw==
X-Received: by 10.55.171.5 with SMTP id u5mr10382288qke.20.1516644411859; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:06:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.30.153] (c-24-60-163-103.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [24.60.163.103]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x10sm7414786qkl.83.2018.01.22.10.06.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:06:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <064DC24E-5642-4866-AD98-8C937DBCB701@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_28BC82C0-D64E-4894-8FAE-6729A8D32B6E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:06:48 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CA+nkc8A91gbqRqR_he4KqCgpfWXf3J-uuU6J2DZjSjfg=QAZjw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
To: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>
References: <9DCE2F63-EE37-4865-B9D6-6B79BBE05593@gmail.com> <CA+nkc8A91gbqRqR_he4KqCgpfWXf3J-uuU6J2DZjSjfg=QAZjw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/KjeZQn9GMxdfDud8I2s11xtz-6w>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02
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, 22 Jan 2018 18:06:56 -0000

On Jan 22, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu> wrote:
> Do we need to make sure stub resolvers get updated before we update DNS, to avoid breaking things?

I support it too.   One observation, Bob—my recollection is that when we discussed this previously, we concluded that it's probably better, if a resolver is broken, for it to fail than succeed.   IOW, at the time I didn't hear a lot of voices saying "we have to hold off on deploying this."

This is not to say that it's a bad question.   Do you have any thoughts about what the answer should be?   In particular, use cases where breaking the resolver would be worse than not breaking it?   Given the way the discussion went earlier, that would probably be the thing to bring up, if you can think of a case where this is something we ought to be working hard to avoid.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email