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

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 21 February 2019 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@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 977181310D7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:22:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.9
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PReTtZHJGN3n for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:22:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-f44.google.com (mail-wr1-f44.google.com [209.85.221.44]) (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 101161277D2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:22:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-f44.google.com with SMTP id c8so31875021wrs.4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:22:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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: <155053239541.25848.12960190085730298684.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <969D8BA1-6ED3-47E8-AFFD-2BEE8EA3E66B@bangj.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902191219070.766@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <0DE33073-93B1-4CF5-B12D-B7266E21E8B2@timwattenberg.de> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1902191715230.30381@bofh.nohats.ca> <1F461BFA-638A-4607-84BD-F8B8597A1114@isc.org> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1902200028210.29865@bofh.nohats.ca> <646C86F6-C10D-43DF-ADE8-19222994E4D1@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <646C86F6-C10D-43DF-ADE8-19222994E4D1@hopcount.ca>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:21:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqd3cAqtv_FkvhuCC6jubzZLx9v5ud2WzrL9bQE+8tLB8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Cc: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000938a7805826c6330"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/OJw9tXoqsVQZXF3u43GpWTBk-Yc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dnsop-update-timeout-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 21 Feb 2019 19:22:05 -0000

At Wed, 20 Feb 2019 07:51:51 -0500,
Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> 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