Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale

Joe Abley <> Thu, 07 September 2017 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA8FA132940 for <>; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 11:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NIEGfFYEvemx for <>; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 11:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26CFF126DD9 for <>; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 11:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g142so477861ita.0 for <>; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 11:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HU0flquxzgqt6EAeWexBd/35igOeylkJq12cxgy5s4g=; b=iM6v8R7iTQxRd4RcIta0BRxyP1noclnmb1yM4fKs7FjGlDWcLuhllMf6Yu+8+rw/GE lAk7SUuR6uyeEK5BV36iipfNGzSuzqVaDsPcyNleKyGeFyCSDma/Z0kWN3oxaeyzlO0m ZVzF7hAzlLmaqTi0U5kQ+ToYJ6qHsAVgOKr90=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HU0flquxzgqt6EAeWexBd/35igOeylkJq12cxgy5s4g=; b=bZEC9xdSm5hyi38qUQe0Ek25vIwd2dur0We+qVXHnSZbxtDi28+MjclyQk0YyGvonM SYWSAZ0lwdVEqCn68r6QRrlotJkdgNVp4DdgoYNzj+YZffG1gWco5a+EVSd6YYckUdWi q0J5YU307M61v4O6GO6EtVV8Op0IEmLUM/HdGY7KU5z0GEzcGhoB5JOzxvFj4O0J5lD3 w/ds/s6di53OjvqkeMxf9USGp4amD7F2EvKRghY58Ienn1u1GGe6NVA7F10gG779Rgai utx8RJwAleg2kH2NYpdNtLVO2PVIO8rIfr+GQzUte7zG/AjEFNB/owZ/4NLXR6LUP9ql cbqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhz5Jz8BtCE7ByukgbffdpyjCDitJVESPRKiTysRcCxtKLnvIuh SiOTkrdOd1UqWp8yyTOwAQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBrRcSMIqPXPo0cDdP0KZt4KJwrbEQhPifM5B36sImX5wq+3Aisa3UcjwrbJqrFx0AEFauZfw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id v196mr234189ita.70.1504808718383; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 11:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [2607:f2c0:101:202:34a6:4c4f:7331:a4ce]) by with ESMTPSA id 85sm128495iom.77.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Sep 2017 11:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Joe Abley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 14:25:14 -0400
Cc: tjw ietf <>, dnsop <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 18:25:21 -0000

On 7 Sep 2017, at 11:42, Stephane Bortzmeyer <> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:25:39PM -0400,
> tjw ietf <> wrote 
> a message of 77 lines which said:
>> This starts a formal Call for Adoption for draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale
>> The draft is available here:
> I'm not enthousiastic. We should focus on making the DNS
> infrastructure more reliable, not on adding something to a pile of
> already fragile protocols.

I hear that. I don't have a strong opinion about whether serving stale data in general is desirable or abhorrent. However, the pragmatist in me says that people are already implementing things like this anyway, and a standard approach is better for all concerned than a fragmented set of uncomfortably-different implementations, which will surely make troubleshooting problems harder.

I also think if a standard specification can be obtained it ought to include appropriate instrumentation to allow a response to indicate whether data is stale or not. This seems to me just one example of a set of additional components we might expect the working group to come up with, which in my mind is a good reason to make it a working group document.

I support adoption with all of that in mind.