Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 26 March 2019 11:47 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 0EC021202C6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 04:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 cuPwuYZWMur6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 04:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.133]) (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 05E021202BC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 04:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:41468) by ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.139]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1h8kYA-000h86-gP (Exim 4.91) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:47:26 +0000
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:47:25 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <23705.25657.838079.44692@gro.dd.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903261143580.13313@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CAJE_bqdugE3oMqyHres4hwhs4-NpO8yW2FwGDrk2WDAtbweBiQ@mail.gmail.com> <23682.53436.400539.805166@gro.dd.org> <8ffa4b04-324a-36c8-a9ff-e0cda726a54c@NLnetLabs.nl> <841f8174-c7d5-c702-e6be-ccb9a7c2c048@redbarn.org> <fe4aecac-aa46-e269-bc77-5250b383685a@bellis.me.uk> <CA+9_gVsfrJVtqqsniJ_f4NKkbtz5J4Q=eHxvxX9Ud86u5=j9Hw@mail.gmail.com> <e75aa69c-e02b-72a1-6375-660151afbdd2@bellis.me.uk> <23705.25657.838079.44692@gro.dd.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/PMb9-IG_qkgIAqhga4RjarR5Ayo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03
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: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:47:32 -0000

Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> wrote:
> Ray Bellis writes:
> > Serve stael must not become a vector whereby malware can keep its C&C
> > systems artificially alive even if the parent has removed the C&C domain
> > name.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with this ideal, and am very open to
> considering text improvements.

I think the suggested max stale timer of 7 days is excessive. The aim is
to cope with an outage, so I think 1 day is much more reasonable (though I
have configured my servers with a 1 hour limit).

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Shetland Isles: West or southwest 5 or 6, decreasing 3 or 4 for a time,
occasionally 7 at first. Moderate in sheltered east, otherwise rough,
occasionally very rough at first in west. Occasional rain. Moderate or good,
occasionally poor.