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

[Shane Kerr <[e-mail]>]

Paul,

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:51:36 -0400 (EDT)
Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> 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