IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 25 August 2016 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 11F2612D106 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 05:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_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 1fl4-tD14CdO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 05:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.140]) (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 6915A12D0B2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 05:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:33732) by ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1bctiP-000MZY-kI (Exim 4.86_36-e07b163) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 25 Aug 2016 13:25:01 +0100
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 13:25:01 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <99CE1D3E-18A0-42E6-949F-E78995AFCEE2@icann.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1608251314311.14525@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <665d8bd3-4229-eb98-1688-2460dcb943b6@gmail.com> <99CE1D3E-18A0-42E6-949F-E78995AFCEE2@icann.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Mzpe0i9H0Yz4k2V8BAqQ-GCpEAw>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts
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, 25 Aug 2016 12:25:10 -0000

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> wrote:

> The question I keep asking myself is: How is this different from a
> client just hitting a server with all anticipated questions at one time?

Me too :-)

I can see an advantage to improving the case where the client can't
predict all the questions in advance, e.g. when the subsequent questions
depend on a SRV target or an SPF include: directive.

A big problem with additional data at the moment is a client doesn't know
whether an absence of data (no AAAA records) means the data doesn't exist,
so it still has to make followup queries to double check. A DNSSEC proof
of nonexistence could help.

> Why not just ask for qtype ANY all the time, for data sets owned by the
> same domain name.

Doesn't work reliably through caches, or with draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any :-)
Also, ANY doesn't actually improve latency compared to concurrent queries.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
Southeast Biscay: Variable 2 or 3, becoming northwesterly 4 or 5 for a time.
Slight or moderate. Occasional showers. Good.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email