Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dnsop-update-timeout-01.txt

神明達哉 <> Thu, 21 February 2019 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977181310D7 for <>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:22:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.018, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PReTtZHJGN3n for <>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:22:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 101161277D2 for <>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:22:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id c8so31875021wrs.4 for <>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:22:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3Ljy8ULSIeSxlIldWKP6XpCIWcmw2esa5CH5+lXor78=; b=gparhWWDQuXDOiDszOEXS9QU0ZkKC3zDRdgHPQ+/6o0ZA4yVF6pwnmNBP7e/icM6XC s7z65lddzNGerEEJBL4HNKvcy0d1COAwxBnzC8Cu91tcAlW1YpduMP2Y11ygOikLySGP TUhAsBrE3tF5wcdoUGuWgaJyRJkTRG3n7/slYK7+G3+FN24sZh2cobmhiKowwbgFABSN 9LEaERf79YC5dFkIZe14H1jUasXvJn8XbY3nv3x+778Zxfn16g/QY/uGndlscQpyl8AA Jb4HGn7wScg5tVo6FF6Tl51LHyMX12PP0EALEqv8n6OrMkXUpSyYyeOPiASrbUbeoSw7 0ftw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubimxq85TC7XrQ1jhZqBb+7TgFpc8AM9KsS1SvKfgJmK0nvzIJL pG8cXjAQYRFOze3tkj5CRL23LOlZ+5CO0LCCTEYlS0a/
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaqE200WHUYUjaIxVaawoQC1lFgGoSSZBjbrVoUPDw7BVP/ohKQZjHK8LjuDU1vkvmKMjVpemlBKQyOHJIYvOs=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:edca:: with SMTP id v10mr44459wro.313.1550776922243; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:22:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:21:50 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Joe Abley <>
Cc: Paul Wouters <>, dnsop <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000938a7805826c6330"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dnsop-update-timeout-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 19:22:05 -0000

At Wed, 20 Feb 2019 07:51:51 -0500,
Joe Abley <> wrote:

> The crux of the use case seems to be that it is commonplace for names in
the DNS to exist for short periods of time and that for some applications a
name that overstays its welcome can cause an operational problem.
> While I can understand the philosophical desire to complete the UPDATE
specification so that it is possible to engineer around this scenario, I
don't see the practical application.

I happen to know there's a practical application related to this
proposal.  As Mark says not all DHCP servers behave politely; there
are servers that just add RRs via DDNS and forget them.  We could say
that it's a problem of poorly implemented DDNS clients, not something
that should be solved in the DNS protocol.  I wouldn't necessarily be
opposed to that view.  In fact, given the higher bar with the "camel"
test, I'm not yet really convinced about the need for a protocol-based
solution to this problem either.  But at least this is related to a
practical problem, not just a philosophical one.

JINMEI, Tatuya