IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-02.txt

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Thu, 29 July 2021 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
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 A8D293A251E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 jAazDoYsce5b for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4CBF3A251C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by puck.nether.net (Postfix, from userid 162) id F1C855403CD; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:52:49 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:52:49 -0400
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
To: Geoff Huston <gih903@gmail.com>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <YQLAwc7R7su6j1WD@puck.nether.net>
References: <CA+9_gVstayRZufjKbi3TgKxnsg-Jt52y1Z3Znnmocyf_iSdoiQ@mail.gmail.com> <20210727201504.2939B25365A4@ary.qy> <CAHPuVdX4jwn=U9ONkuGd_LU0cgcGVyNpy7=aHnjqtX8MHTj2tg@mail.gmail.com> <372D08DF-8FD5-48EF-9D1F-261F8E185DFC@gmail.com> <e88632f0-15cb-21d5-efb0-49a915d0604@nohats.ca> <738E8C69-FB67-47C6-9EB9-FA980A2A658C@gmail.com> <0.2.0-final-1627518790.482-0x111b95@qmda.emu.st> <97B5600F-B3FD-4BF1-8892-6639F96F4826@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <97B5600F-B3FD-4BF1-8892-6639F96F4826@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/VmR2Idvv3s5-90MTrwDDdUJMZEU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 29 Jul 2021 14:52:57 -0000

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 11:45:28AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 29 Jul 2021, at 10:33 am, Mark Delany <m9p@india.emu.st> wrote:
> > 
> > On 29Jul21, Geoff Huston allegedly wrote:
> > 
> >> For me it appears to depend on the actions of the resolver as to whether this would be faster
> >> or not. If all resolvers blindly re-query using TCP for all UDP responses where TC=1 is seen in
> > 
> > I'm not sure I follow this bit. Are you merely implying that the resolver should first
> > consider a larger edns0 bufsize before resorting to TCP?
> 
> Seems that the DNS Flag Day 2020 precluded that option, so I don’t think its available.


	I think we should simplify the number of ways we do something,
be it edns0 or tcp.  We are seeing the difference in everyone wanting
their own way/transport/whatnot and therefore keep growing the methods
to get the same data.

	But yes, as we increase the default answer size with additional
glue, signatures, validation, we should be following and sizing as
appropriate.

	- Jared

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email