IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 16 August 2016 23:58 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 52D02128E19 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 dsMySrQLGpvU for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 209A312D111 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.64] (50-1-98-193.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.193]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u7GNvvkt007930 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:57:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-193.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.193] claimed to be [10.32.60.64]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:57:57 -0700
Message-ID: <B884FE91-F46F-42DB-957A-78B560D888EB@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <665d8bd3-4229-eb98-1688-2460dcb943b6@gmail.com>
References: <665d8bd3-4229-eb98-1688-2460dcb943b6@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Yf7f2D2EdjGgapQZO6kVdv0uskI>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 16 Aug 2016 23:58:02 -0000

On 16 Aug 2016, at 5:57, Tim Wicinski wrote:

> - Do we want to Server to PUSH any or all Associated Answers, or
>
> - Do we want the Client to PULL any or all Associated Answers, or
>
> - Do we want the Status Quo?

Client pull, which is really just the client saying "if you have this, 
send it to me in the Additional section", fits the current DNS model the 
best. (Well, "status quo" fits it the best but it causes more overhead 
than client pull.)

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email