Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-wkumari-dnsop-root-loopback

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 18 November 2014 04:05 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 8A0F71AD09C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:05:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.647
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 HHGdTDAj1v6z for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:05:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) (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 BB4CC1AD05C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:05:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (142-254-17-111.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.17.111]) (authenticated bits=0) by proper.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sAI44um6058250 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:04:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: proper.com: Host 142-254-17-111.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.17.111] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <FE0CA17E-0702-4A8A-B25D-ADC88AE94E78@icsi.berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:04:56 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <86CC9DD3-6804-4F94-831E-DD408C89EECA@vpnc.org>
References: <54691B0A.6060508@gmail.com> <54692F7A.6030803@dougbarton.us> <20141117071250.GA55492@isc.org> <546A73B6.2060005@dougbarton.us> <20141117225045.GA35924@isc.org> <546A873F.8060402@dougbarton.us> <FE0CA17E-0702-4A8A-B25D-ADC88AE94E78@icsi.berkeley.edu>
To: Nicholas Weaver <nweaver@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/YAAJaDsDltixLQzyaibuefJspvw
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-wkumari-dnsop-root-loopback
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 18 Nov 2014 04:05:09 -0000

On Nov 17, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Nicholas Weaver <nweaver@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> Trying to be polite here, but this seems just silly, and the only thing really should be "Don't Bother".
> 
> 
> Root latency frankly speaking does not matter.  Lookups to the root themselves should be rare, and the responses have very long TTLs (48 hours!).  So this is clearly optimizing something that needs no optimization.

It's fine if you don't want the WG to adopt this draft, but that second sentence is clearly wrong. The third paragraph of the introduction says:

      <t>The primary goal of this design is to provide faster negative
      responses to stub resolver queries that contain junk queries. This
      design will probably have little effect on getting faster positive
      responses to stub resolver for good queries on TLDs, because the data
      for those zones is usually long-lived and already in the cache of the
      recursive resolver; thus, getting faster positive responses is a
      non-goal of this design.</t>

Lookups to the root for things that don't actually exist in the root happen all the time, yes?

--Paul Hoffman