Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts
william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com> Thu, 18 August 2016 05:34 UTC
Return-Path: <chinese.apricot@gmail.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 7D80012B040 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 mGRt3SruAA7r for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x231.google.com (mail-it0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::231]) (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 6107612B015 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x231.google.com with SMTP id f6so9749700ith.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ev8z0ozoVm6uZYioM2bDbUUA3xUhSHdcZIvgOo1J+94=; b=t3gw9RmXjapTaSOe/6oDqjEyufYKseofQSZDyTKHqKA65rgtEX1d8cB6+qz74zKkeI 7dwm5I/0XIb3wS86c7o4bVVzr/bcHGWvcAvkJWkx0682kXM0H82TmH254DB4Z3V77fve yuSbDkqOtqJtjhjPv5W0d/+zdHvi9w+pl96Fs2RxFDM9uXVfedJUZBDeAFvWjcHFn6Ya U8Ycr1vnQnCt5B98hmCumxitz0dCjdl95ucoLYZ/mzwS6n2lvLde2pXPwJkZj7iWLb8D LueGBMZzk2SBzXJUdWHl0zINrC2+pvD44EwfI3neSGGQbgncGBmRjWPddGd8T2YovZu1 K37Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ev8z0ozoVm6uZYioM2bDbUUA3xUhSHdcZIvgOo1J+94=; b=H1sAouhP+z5f6uyKR7jE7Hymo3GxOZkurB1m1BtfPfoxbx9FBg/BMPotU3ZSF1lt1C 1dENw8MyVkwgP1A7RJiHNCviVYkejGvdSevjJXj7uG6KQXskMWOZIsVsZmBx8TfWXx1z MuO5swNAD+6+eMJrY9ngi5Ma3Cn4lGMJx6qEYDJSmODZUtHbNu6bgag/n2my6BHjyXzO dD52eZmNyIWcv0Pc+FRSXC6h5DZKMTg6Tk/IyqwYWgXW2vi7aW0BgUXeUBTn0pZvdPCh 2ZH6i7SF+UxVDOFnhERTJeh/omYj+JiXYP2bxGl0kqqOdkYKvUBAVmDKjHDoPNgyUNin cw8Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouutP5vkaX+pXEWgirI7nd10Vf0KdR11D66gY+5nuNNX18D9wZsXSBr3Co7PEzGoCYUrBNKb92z/V6KdBg==
X-Received: by 10.36.73.195 with SMTP id e64mr1009565itd.80.1471498439565; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.35.213 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAiTEH--d3J7E0kib6WedXKeuQKYcofaVZra5vuh2qpt8RUSHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <665d8bd3-4229-eb98-1688-2460dcb943b6@gmail.com> <CAAiTEH--d3J7E0kib6WedXKeuQKYcofaVZra5vuh2qpt8RUSHQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:33:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CACfw2hh3OXw9Z7S8s3MSKwHMCEm=uUT03+tS0g1esMU0PULVqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113982fac72d1b053a51eddc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/O2jJwVKy9p5B3o0Z8NFEiRAiUZg>
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, 18 Aug 2016 05:34:02 -0000
please help me get over the feeling that this argument is founded on the same logic as that used by folks who "know" I might want, no NEED that extra bit of email in my inbox. As I read it, it sounds like DNS Server Spam being "PUSHED" to the Resolver who may or may not want the data. Please advise. /Wm On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com> wrote: > > On 16 August 2016 at 08:57, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > >> All, >> >> >> In Berlin we had two presentations on different methods of returning >> multiple responses: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses/ >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes/ >> >> and a presentation in Buenos Aires: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vavrusa-dnsop-aaaa-for-free/ >> >> All of these documents are attempting to solve a larger problem in >> different ways. >> The end result is "Return Associated Answer" to the client. >> >> The question is starting to coalesce around these two premises: >> >> - Do we want to Server to PUSH any or all Associated Answers, or >> > > > - Do we want the Client to PULL any or all Associated Answers, or >> > > There are times when the server side of the communication will know what > the client needs next, much the same as following a CNAME chain. This > might include records included automatically, such as returning the A/AAAA > records from the RDATA of a SRV record. It might also include records > added by local policy, whether that's from configuration or learned by > heuristics. In the future that might include things like returning an HTTP > SRV record for the apex (and associated address records) when a 'www' label > is queried for. > > There's a fair bit of overlap between the use cases for push and pull, but > I think more use cases are covered by push than pull. It's possible that > the use cases for pull are a subset of the use cases for push. I haven't > yet thought of any pull use cases that couldn't be covered by push. > > I think there's some flexibility to be gained from implementers having > both tools available, but I think if we were to only pursue one it should > be push. I think the fears of providing a DDoS tool can be assuaged by > requiring the use of things like cookies, or session signalling as a > prerequisite. > > >> >> - Do we want the Status Quo? >> > > The status quo works ... but I believe there are things to be gained by > moving forward. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > >
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Marek Vavruša
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Marek Vavruša
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Marek Vavruša
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Matthew Pounsett
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Matthew Pounsett
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … william manning
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … abby pan
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Matthew Pounsett
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Bob Harold
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … fujiwara
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … william manning
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … George Michaelson
- [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in R… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … william manning
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences … Shane Kerr