[DNSOP] Review of draft [draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-04.txt]

"Woodworth, John R" <John.Woodworth@CenturyLink.com> Thu, 09 February 2017 08:53 UTC

Return-Path: <John.Woodworth@CenturyLink.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 351B01295DA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 00:53:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X2pHGkWQjEFM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 00:53:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lxdnp29m.centurylink.com (lxdnp29m.centurylink.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A39491293D6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 00:53:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lxdenvmpc030.qintra.com (emailout.qintra.com []) by lxdnp29m.centurylink.com (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id v198rTi9002053 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 01:53:29 -0700
Received: from lxdenvmpc030.qintra.com (unknown []) by IMSA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C8F1E0049; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 01:53:24 -0700 (MST)
Received: from lxdnp31k.corp.intranet (unknown []) by lxdenvmpc030.qintra.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8101E0035; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 01:53:24 -0700 (MST)
Received: from lxdnp31k.corp.intranet (localhost []) by lxdnp31k.corp.intranet (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id v198rObt013440; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 01:53:24 -0700
Received: from vodcwhubex502.ctl.intranet (vodcwhubex502.ctl.intranet []) by lxdnp31k.corp.intranet (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id v198rNPi013432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 01:53:24 -0700
Received: from PODCWMBXEX501.ctl.intranet ([]) by vodcwhubex502.ctl.intranet ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 02:53:23 -0600
From: "Woodworth, John R" <John.Woodworth@CenturyLink.com>
To: 'Ólafur Guðmundsson' <olafur@cloudflare.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] Review of draft [draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-04.txt]
Thread-Index: AQHSgq76IQmXyncSSk6eWHtGX0j5VQ==
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 08:53:22 +0000
Message-ID: <A05B583C828C614EBAD1DA920D92866BD06D3976@PODCWMBXEX501.ctl.intranet>
References: <148661979638.4286.4234665114055399732.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN6NTqxwETnX2wP=NAinW8-4+t4FMpHCma-B-Tce=f-LLLff0g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN6NTqxwETnX2wP=NAinW8-4+t4FMpHCma-B-Tce=f-LLLff0g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Kmx2a63dftODUAPjg5_9icysO7A>
Cc: "Woodworth, John R" <John.Woodworth@CenturyLink.com>, "Ballew, Dean" <Dean.Ballew@CenturyLink.com>
Subject: [DNSOP] Review of draft [draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-04.txt]
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 08:53:32 -0000


This is my first draft review so apologies if it seems harsh, I
really like the concept of this draft.


Section 4.1 "Select one RRSet mode" -

The section including "...choose a small one(s) to..." seems
confusing, a single RRSet is expected why the possibility of
multiple RRsets?

Section 4.2 "Synthesised HINFO RRset" -

I do not follow the section including "...query includes DO=1...".
Should the implementation fall back to the one-RRSet-mode?  If the
only RRSet returned is a synthesized HINFO one, what does the
returned RRSIG correspond to?

General -

I would personally like to see more direction for implementers
provided in the draft, e.g. expected configurable features.
I realize this is a matter of personal taste.

Thanks and good luck,

This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.