Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-02.txt

[Geoff Huston <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

> On 29 Jul 2021, at 2:10 am, Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021, Geoff Huston wrote:
> 
>> i.e. amend section 3 to read:...
>> 
>> 3. Recommendations
>> 
>> This document clarifies RFC1034 in that in-bailiwick [RFC8499] glue (being part of all
>> available glue records) MUST be returned in referral responses, and there is a requirement
>> to set TC=1 if all in-bailiwick glue cannot fit in the response.
> 
> I think the reasons for returning non-in-bailiwick are the same as for
> in-bailiwick glue. You want to give the client as many DNS servers as
> possible to increase resilience of the zone. What is your argument for
> making this less resilient?

The current version of the draft proposes a mandatory (“MUST”) inclusion of all
in-bailiwick glue records, all “sibling” glue records and is silent on all other
(non-in-bailiwick) glue records.

I had suggested text that was intended to maintain the approach already used in
the draft but I suggested dropping the mandatory (MUST) inclusion of the so-called
“sibling” glue records, and leaving the mandatory to include provision only
relating to in-bailiwick glue records.

Now the draft/operational advice could go in many directions at this point:

a) for basic functionality of DNS resolution it should be mandatory (MUST) to include
in-bailiwick glue records (it’s not clear if “all”) is appropriate for the basic
functionality of the DNS resolution protocol.

b) for more robust resolution performance it would be a good idea (SHOULD? MUST?) to include _all_
in-bailiwick glue records.

It's unclear to me that a compelling case can be made to MUST include _all_ glue records in a referral
response, particularly relating to non-in-bailiwick glue records. 

For me it appears to depend on the actions of the resolver as to whether this would be faster
or not. If all resolvers blindly re-query using TCP for all UDP responses where TC=1 is seen in
responses, then the additional query could be seen as wasted time that could contribute to
slower resolution times. If resolvers actually treat TC=1 in a more optional manner, as in “more
information is available, but if you've got what you needed to move on, then don’t bother
with the TCP followup query.” I suppose it depends on how strictly one interprets the guidance in
Section 9 of RFC2181, which appears to state that TC=1 means requery, to paraphrase the text
in that RFC.

And there is of course the ever-present issues with the resolver’s treatment of non-in-bailiwick
glue records.


Geoff




 



> 
>> Section 5 deviates away from protocol requirements into registry practice and
>> the deviation appears to be at best a somewhat random thought!
>> 
>> It makes no sense to me to even include sections 4 or  5 in this document.
> 
> I guess what the document is trying to say is "this glue that is not
> optional also applies to records that are technically not glue because
> it is authoritative data". We really only want to mention that these
> should still be added and TC=1 should still be set if it does not fit.
> 
> Paul
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop