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

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 07 September 2017 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 A110D132D0C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 08:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 nOyIXxhI9BP4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 08:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4834D132CE8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 08:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id D01172801B2; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:42:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id CA9472806BD; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:42:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (unknown [10.1.50.11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C41C92801B2; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:42:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C14C5606D942; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:42:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B58F741E1F; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:42:34 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:42:34 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170907154234.3z2zbju2sciiy7wr@nic.fr>
References: <CADyWQ+FHDHcmq-mr0BCHS5A8yvaOQmhTjve1_DmZN6vAc=BKyA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+FHDHcmq-mr0BCHS5A8yvaOQmhTjve1_DmZN6vAc=BKyA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.1
X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-3-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2017.9.7.152716
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/RO0Lv5DG-fB04wGzaDkgzeLn-JE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:42:38 -0000

On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:25:39PM -0400,
 tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> 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:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale/

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.

There is also an opportunity that it masks failures and prevents
people from properly assigning blame: "example.com works if I use
Something Public DNS but not if I use my ISP's resolver, therefore my
ISP is broken".

Also, the current draft does not make crystal-clear that stale data
MUST NOT be served unless no authoritative name server replies.

If it is adopted, I think that requesting some way to convey the fact
it is stale to the client (Davey Song's message) is necessary.

Regarding the draft, I'm surprised by the paragraph starting with
"Paul Vixie has suggested", paragraph which seems to completely ignore
RFC 8020.