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
- [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-q… internet-drafts
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-cha… Shane Kerr
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-cha… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-cha… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-cha… Shane Kerr