IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de> Tue, 13 September 2022 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <dns@fl1ger.de>
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 ACD9CC157B3B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 07:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 lOwAu_onAuTl for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 07:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.guxx.net (nyx.guxx.net [85.10.208.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BD9DC14CF1D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 07:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.42.141] (p4ff53e54.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.245.62.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F20AE5F40191; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 14:03:15 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Petr Špaček <pspacek@isc.org>, dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 16:03:04 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5915)
Message-ID: <59000D83-F6AC-4C1B-AEA6-FAAC507E0DCE@fl1ger.de>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+FUgD+1Hj6RwWN8f-i=gi8Ao0tpHX4rzy7CWsKfik1gJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <166251411453.51793.7893145834491865444@ietfa.amsl.com> <a8b7e07e-c11e-f8a7-7552-f61edc83adda@isc.org> <CADyWQ+FUgD+1Hj6RwWN8f-i=gi8Ao0tpHX4rzy7CWsKfik1gJw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/XJJ2Ng_2-srjbyPh0uqNHGkBZB8>
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 14:03:21 -0000

Moin!

On 13 Sep 2022, at 15:47, Tim Wicinski 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.
>>
>> Protocol in this draft is pretty complex, and so far the sky did not
>> fall despite resolvers not implementing it.
>>
>> Based on this observation I think it should not be mandatory, and also
>> that parent-centric DNS resolver implementations should not be
>> "outlawed" by this (to-be) RFC.
>>
>>
> This is good feedback, and it helps us.  We should also hear from
> other implementers about their opinion on this.
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.
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.

So long
-Ralf
——-
Ralf Weber

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email