IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Delany <m9p@india.emu.st> Thu, 29 July 2021 00:33 UTC

Return-Path: <m9p@india.emu.st>
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 2CA243A0121 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=emu.st
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 ys8yE-HYnq3V for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from f3.bushwire.net (f3.bushwire.net [203.0.120.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B00C3A011D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by f3.bushwire.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 8881A3B030; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:33:10 +1000 (AEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=emu.st; s=2019; t=1627518790; bh=v6hlkixyckSr5GSRvmoU00QTtPU=; h=Comments:Received:From:Comments:Message-ID:Subject: Content-Disposition:Date:To:Mail-Followup-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:In-Reply-To; b=IYzeksgZu0xs1gKw2l3gtWVC5WPGNV6pHEPctdVJJ94YPzkRXWkLjMkcxtwlJTDc0 8HTXKtPKTFzBViPyIzjRooyuVMsJzawkV0m3OjyhtBGEGfbiEts5ATzgZ/u4fmjrJB SyNlkC1KyrGAHnQc3+VepDxRFV63Z1QQu1IsSDRA=IsSDRA=
Comments: QMDA 0.3a
Received: (qmail 71804 invoked by uid 1001); 29 Jul 2021 00:33:10 -0000
From: Mark Delany <m9p@india.emu.st>
Comments: QMDASubmit submit() 0.2.0-final
Message-ID: <0.2.0-final-1627518790.482-0x111b95@qmda.emu.st>
Content-Disposition: inline
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 00:33:10 +0000
To: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Mail-Followup-To: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <CA+9_gVstayRZufjKbi3TgKxnsg-Jt52y1Z3Znnmocyf_iSdoiQ@mail.gmail.com> <20210727201504.2939B25365A4@ary.qy> <CAHPuVdX4jwn=U9ONkuGd_LU0cgcGVyNpy7=aHnjqtX8MHTj2tg@mail.gmail.com> <372D08DF-8FD5-48EF-9D1F-261F8E185DFC@gmail.com> <e88632f0-15cb-21d5-efb0-49a915d0604@nohats.ca> <738E8C69-FB67-47C6-9EB9-FA980A2A658C@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
In-Reply-To: <738E8C69-FB67-47C6-9EB9-FA980A2A658C@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/PFn1vdI-ymU5JnGJ-I3-G67ehGQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-02.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, 29 Jul 2021 00:33:23 -0000

On 29Jul21, Geoff Huston allegedly wrote:

> 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

I'm not sure I follow this bit. Are you merely implying that the resolver should first
consider a larger edns0 bufsize before resorting to TCP?

Or are you suggesting that responses with TC=1 should include as much of the answers as
will fit and then the resolver can decide whether enough is enough?

That is, what do they look at to avoid a "blind requery"?


Mark.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email