IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation-03.txt

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Tue, 13 September 2022 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 CEDBCC14CE2F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 07:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redbarn.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j5urIHnUzvYQ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 07:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from util.redbarn.org (util.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::222]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6C80C14CF12 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 07:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by util.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75332167CDA; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 14:48:37 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=redbarn.org; s=util; t=1663080517; bh=/AteTG7a6TD8tHrhd9WIjqessheymFSVEPbnNEK190Q=; h=Date:Cc:Subject:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=gU8fd2c0iHAMFhX9E9A2fGevsG0JOXaZsBt3E1xxg0L+Wjl0kHfNN3DSTk6hKZlWf qr3PIadGOJ/MNYzUi4zbz4HAKboEgunW8im7BIX1qoSbJRroUYV+l1cmwmSeBIWss0 atwTvIFr6p6YK5J9vgX7qHJROEkNvpSePmRToh9E=
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A62BC40B7; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 14:48:37 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 14:48:37 +0000
Message-Id: <CMVCUACN903B.3VISL7SZ2JB60@family.redbarn.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: aerc 0.12.0
References: <166251411453.51793.7893145834491865444@ietfa.amsl.com> <a8b7e07e-c11e-f8a7-7552-f61edc83adda@isc.org> <CADyWQ+FUgD+1Hj6RwWN8f-i=gi8Ao0tpHX4rzy7CWsKfik1gJw@mail.gmail.com> <59000D83-F6AC-4C1B-AEA6-FAAC507E0DCE@fl1ger.de>
In-Reply-To: <59000D83-F6AC-4C1B-AEA6-FAAC507E0DCE@fl1ger.de>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/UGl5ZqlM6nUMGuQWEDvIfbfcdQE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 13 Sep 2022 14:48:42 -0000

On Tue Sep 13, 2022 at 2:03 PM UTC, Ralf Weber wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 7:18 AM Petr Špaček <pspacek@isc.org> wrote:
> >> Speaking with my BIND hat on, I would prefer Informational.
> >>
> Here we go. I fully support what Petr said. Initial (very cold cache)
> DNS resolution only works from the parent down and usually is way faster.

having implemented and operated this recursive server logic over many years,
i can assure you that its cold-cache performance is broadly unremarkable.

> As you may recall I did not support adoption of this draft because of
> the same concerns initially and my stance has not changed. So if this
> becomes and RFC it can’t be more then informational or experimental.

it mustn't be required but also must be permitted. that does place a
constraint on the protocol's future evolution. so it's possible that
neither "informational" or "experimental" are strong enough. i think
if the document states that the feature is optional for implementors
and operators, then its status could be proposed standard, safely.

vixie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email