Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming
william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com> Tue, 09 August 2016 22:11 UTC
Return-Path: <chinese.apricot@gmail.com>
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 F383412D098 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 oZ_o2oaZLJR0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22c.google.com (mail-it0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10D1712D8A1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id x130so24365652ite.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 15:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4SIxDTiCpxyiW9F7tDcPahsfrJIxYmOfLHH8EhRe4O4=; b=CYkrAelJoe2gn+/uhfZAVY5zD52+LWVUuB8IOokOKUdou7sUFApEit776lgG+5yNKW NWvjEvrA5E+sPDJLZqpItDMVA8hr8hPn2hc1UX0tNwjmz7aYKd7lBgy83ZUsDbKgc6G/ v15/Jhf8fpxoV2fthIPMt6t3HXO0ctUANZR3hw26D2bmcAu3Fwnq/KOqUypO9BMl19Z+ LKzHro3VmX33pNQZZ0MdHsGBF84gRfuZowJW8YPmcLOZJODOw8/Caqc8qJwYGYe5p7Xu WFFcuRNAq4UkVcGooea1NJpZNq1v/KgGT7u49RruysbwvKDcYIOj5zHZ8bAuN54S2gXZ nJpA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4SIxDTiCpxyiW9F7tDcPahsfrJIxYmOfLHH8EhRe4O4=; b=VwkcR+SE20Hu0GyKr6dchlogxJeenXo/bFC8eO8wvf+pcQH1cJzUdrupgcBA23XCs0 1rjTs+GOcZHqINkatblDA+uSmV0Im4v8RTPGB9s+JkSM8vZm7LD/KufPEzxYXw3KhupE 0Dv21ZyAl0KdGHvCLg7OCUFgqczF7/CJh3sRF2JnJpcjolkToK7oYy4eo0Nu7QF/2mTY +rZMCIjq2jKVWEz6GQu6xgJe4ORDdUBpzbAuYr/Xog1HRjke3J51A3iihVI7gPSQ04eK bZRFIB7kzAVI+4CC/NtJMsyO+csaYP2SPw87X944jMx1r7SZq6qWUYnHHAwm0ZNJKUxr eG5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouv8DvG7ux8DMZa6q03Dxl8rFt71GaHImOyTd/qWC4t9tEdM0I+JsFZMJ6+p4A5GtPpGrq6SeSKjqY+uFQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.253.194 with SMTP id m185mr1737396ith.2.1470780674474; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 15:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.35.213 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 15:11:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CACfw2hhqZZmKt1z3ZT_HCUV6uz18ttKqKfhth+=-8t1cQ6pnBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0360e6a51f270539aacfc7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/QsXAln9k55t2KPu3B7vBu_ZNuU8>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 09 Aug 2016 22:11:21 -0000
re the 2 second timeout. perhaps timeout does not express the intent well. I think of most of the DNS timeout options to be effectively hold-down timers - to be used to prevent excessive "chatty" behaviours. /W On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote: > All, > > At 2016-08-04 20:03:35 -0400 > Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Remember the Resolver Priming draft? This thing has been kicking around > > for a good solid 5 years. It stalled for a few years waiting for the > > busy authors perform some updates. > > Then Paul Hoffman took the reins and has done a great job getting this > > ready for publication. > > w00t > > I like this document, and am happy that it is moving again. :) > > > This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver- > priming > > > > Current versions of the draft is available here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming/ > > > > Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. Also, if someone > > feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak out with > > your reasons. > > I have two minor comments, which may not require any changes. > > > First, we have: > > "If a priming query does not get a response within 2 seconds, the > recursive resolver SHOULD retry with a different target address from > the configuration." > > The "2 seconds" seems a bit arbitrary. I'm not sure why any > recommendations need to be made at all. The document already says that > these are basically normal DNS queries elsewhere - surely that is enough? > (And maybe if we do want to recommend a retry then we need to be clear > that if an answer comes from an earlier query that the resolver may > accept it?) > > > Second, a possible additional security consideration is that a priming > query typically signals a resolver starting with an empty cache > (although not always - the Knot resolver has a persistent cache, for > example). This may be an especially vulnerable time for a resolver for > cache poisoning. I don't know what can be done to mitigate this though > aside from requiring TCP or DNS cookies for a time after startup, so > perhaps this can be left out. > > Cheers, > > -- > Shane > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > >
- Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dn… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dn… 神明達哉
- Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dn… Bob Harold
- Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dn… 神明達哉
- Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dn… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dn… william manning
- Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dn… 神明達哉