IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] raising the bar: requiring implementations

Frederico A C Neves <fneves@registro.br> Wed, 28 March 2018 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <fneves@registro.br>
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 3ABD01275AB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 vhi3ESNirNK9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clone.registro.br (clone.registro.br [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:2::4]) (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 BD52E126DC2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by clone.registro.br (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3A6882A466A; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:28:15 -0300 (BRT)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:28:15 -0300
From: Frederico A C Neves <fneves@registro.br>
To: bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>
Cc: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org>, tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180328192815.GW62218@registro.br>
References: <20180324110756.GE69302@vurt.meerval.net> <9a03dbfb-a4c7-9ca2-22c4-d00a0d0d0223@nlnetlabs.nl> <CADyWQ+G7oR5M9pHgj5Ty+4yL1nsep2mpujLiE7nf__kVmN13fQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180328151939.GA19504@jurassic> <20180328152433.GB1788@server.ds9a.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180328152433.GB1788@server.ds9a.nl>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/PWUn7Ytms3dEEE1SIgJ9DzptBAk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] raising the bar: requiring implementations
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:28:19 -0000

Bert,

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 05:24:33PM +0200, bert hubert wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:49:39PM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> > I'd raise the bar even higher, to see complete implementation in a major
> > open source DNS implementation when it applies. Sometimes implementation
> > problems are very revealing (client-subnet should have gone through
> > this).
> 
> Well to allow the one remaining closed source DNS implementation some room,
> I think we could live with a 'demo' from them if they'd want to. This would
> lead to an implementation report, much like is customary in the BGP WGs.
> 
> But otherwise, +100. 
> 
> This might go for MIXFR which we are discussing now btw.  It looks nice in
> theory, but I wonder about the practice, and if the people who want this
> (TLD operators I guess) would be willing to test it in simulated production
> to see if it fits their needs.

We'll definitely test this on real data with open-source clients and
with our own server implementation.

> 
> 	Bert
> 

Fred

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email