IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Wed, 21 April 2021 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
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 D1BA13A3232 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 11:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 ddSRnF2BU4Oq for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 11:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.78]) (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 647893A3231 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 11:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.6]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 13LIRiTg001800 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:27:44 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.858.5; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 11:27:43 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.0858.010; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 11:27:43 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements
Thread-Index: AQHXNKj/CYIT49DGPkORBYLQu+9aF6q/xBCA
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:27:43 +0000
Message-ID: <5A8EAC0F-355D-400F-8D8D-6274DC81286A@icann.org>
References: <93D82731-7B33-4E39-8DEF-FF6C14803191@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <93D82731-7B33-4E39-8DEF-FF6C14803191@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D5530BC6-D1B3-46BA-9B83-BA9B2C869FB9"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-21_05:2021-04-21, 2021-04-21 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Q-QO5JR3ZNhVyORVhM5O6_pFEDo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements
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: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:27:53 -0000

On Apr 18, 2021, at 4:17 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:
> We’d like to advance this but it needs some active support, so we need to hear from folks who have found it useful, especially implementers.

It is indeed useful, and should be published. However, the wording in the draft needs to be updated about living in the world where TCP is already required. RFC 7766 has been a standard for over five years, but some parts of draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements, notably the abstract and introduction, use words that indicate that support for TCP is not necessary mandated. All this text should be updated before the document goes to IETF Last Call. If others agree, I would be happy to help the authors find and replace the weak requirements language.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email