Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query-03.txt

Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> Fri, 23 October 2015 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <shane@time-travellers.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED091A1BE4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 07:56:25 -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, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 5d5d7ysh4h79 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 07:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time-travellers.nl.eu.org (c.time-travellers.nl.eu.org [IPv6:2a02:2770::21a:4aff:fea3:eeaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6C0F1A1BE3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 07:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:960:7b5:3:c68e:8fff:fef5:64bd] (helo=pallas.home.time-travellers.org) by time-travellers.nl.eu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <shane@time-travellers.org>) id 1ZpdlT-0003eE-3J; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:56:19 +0000
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:56:19 +0200
From: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Message-ID: <20151023165619.54b88831@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1510191943290.31967@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <20151003203753.29292.37650.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20151006150506.1935afdc@casual> <alpine.LFD.2.20.1510191943290.31967@bofh.nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.0 (GTK+ 2.24.28; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/RH92_gd_OG3QamloIOPwPZVNLIQ>
Cc: dnsop mailing list <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:56:25 -0000

Paul,

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:51:36 -0400 (EDT)
Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Shane Kerr wrote:
> 
> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> >>  This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group of the IETF.
> >>
> >>         Title           : Chain Query requests in DNS
> >>         Author          : Paul Wouters
> >> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query-03.txt
> >> 	Pages           : 15
> >> 	Date            : 2015-10-03  
> 
> I've updated the draft based on your review and that of Evan Hunt.

Cool!

Noticed a typo:

s/partian/partial/

> > * There doesn't seem to be advice for a resolver when support for Chain
> >  Query is disabled when it was previously working. Probably something
> >  like "A resolver MUST handle the case where a Chain Query does not
> >  return the full chain. It MAY change resolvers in this case. It MAY
> >  periodically attempt to try getting a Chain Query at that server."  
> 
> I didn't address this yet. Isn't this more of a local implementation
> kind of thing?

I guess? I'm not opposed to helping implementors by dropping some MAY
statements in the RFC. "Here's some stuff you're going to need to
deal with." But I certainly won't push for this.
 
> > * A comment: It is possible for DNSKEY and RRSIG to time out at
> >  different intervals (and DS, I suppose), right?. It seems that this
> >  will result in a bit of extra data now and then, the resolver needs to
> >  specify an entire "last known query name". I think this is okay, but
> >  it might be possible to avoid this by specifying which particular
> >  records are needed. Probably that is unneeded complication for this
> >  case.  
> 
> Evan suggested I define the Trust Point as the lowest FQDN for which you
> have both DS and DNSKEY records, so that case should be covered now.
> I don't think DNSKEY and RRSIGs can have a different TTL? But if they do,
> then I guess the resolver will define that as "not having a validated
> copy".

Okay, seems clear enough.

Over all it looks quite excellent! :)

Cheers,

--
Shane