Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-10.txt> (DNS Stateful Operations) to Proposed Standard

Job Snijders <> Tue, 12 June 2018 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4582130F76 for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wYDyKtEJHxtT for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66CBF130E06 for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i19-v6so29011844otk.10 for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AeuplKGMt8UoE/Ia1pBuWYlyQsgEV8zfto1xlSb6/So=; b=MPOWmRiHrQGHlH5l4KNOKGc5UsuzbjFfrkunY3ymXDoBY/iBETxMch4mWQqqHR1vo4 +xszpihU1SX6wDsvrFo6H/FIISP/DwtY85A/X81KNMutuInP2u8KbRsCcOr5JbaoxHSd MFxgxYERNZl7aanoP/kjOxJsdY2P3Kg7Mn6rN7ys0X4n1QKYLPVIVmfuTF+mzcJVmiXp WvpcDjOhcxzf7QJ6tvM3KA03TGrh641oqp/bZLb7w2FGIGhvenw9vXH9RmS/NsADZmqk Hg1g5Xbu4TI2yIjeJv/13kSFDCOhFet2L8gTlBgbI71FZc72MqUpTRUbWkeVr7YgwTIJ cPWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AeuplKGMt8UoE/Ia1pBuWYlyQsgEV8zfto1xlSb6/So=; b=eocFJY6lawTbG8VKiM8j6YYx/LQ5jsOIC8K788PPenebJcVyVkoLg6vhZxmLX5euaT a3ofmqE8dyW9jiEiv4RlfCwPXU9SWHxljZ5+mchc3/gA3xvfP10+vDjE2Cclg0VkSw9H XIt2zFN2jyrwWCUTSAutWkZAWZBlgF57C1A0/Ssw7yvf5IPHZsVuML+YBkUIdLH9ZJe+ aURqEpFc1dYP6yTDK85CUpc/VXihA5AXIte5DLeWo8RTa7kF9kElY7VOl7hVqRTshKNx z1V8ooYkbyYQtyaLNpe2VATLiivrwDX5lklgFt9IEK1A5my4sipG5oyK332dYxysiejI tZ1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0YXEt8LhkTBWoY1ObVaDjKiT4bfsLdOPWEHN5nTdrmSjOKeomh xuNjaZBa397NfnUt4aYHrm/TJErST+wpAcrCy3LYMaL1h2+ndw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKkIYS9E4YZ97br1B0e9wPE5sshIanSIqG3j5WJtd6iOX6LPlqlw7nJK+1kx5zSJPe0izbjkzNrFH+MGH+iRhQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:128f:: with SMTP id g15-v6mr863539otg.5.1528824430752; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4a:bd90:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:67c:208c:10:71b5:db6c:9d95:feed]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Job Snijders <>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 19:27:09 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Tom Pusateri <>
Cc: Ted Lemon <>, dnsop <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-10.txt> (DNS Stateful Operations) to Proposed Standard
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:27:14 -0000

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Tom Pusateri <> wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Job Snijders <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
>>> Yes.   I'm using it right now to implement draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-relay, and
>>> that implementation is working and interoperating.   I don't know of another
>>> independent implementation yet, unfortunately.
>> Can you elaborate a bit more? What is the name of the implementation?
>> This is an implementation in progress? I don't fully understand how
>> there can be interoperating if there is no other implementation.
>> I see roughly 150 (!) BCP14  keywords in this draft. Can you specify
>> for your implementation for each of these normative keywords whether
>> your implementation is complaint, or not, and if not why not?
> I did an initial implementation of a client and server for DNS push notifications which is based on Stateful Operations. This code isn’t public and I haven’t looked at it for about 6 months. But it did identify some issues early on in the draft that we corrected for.

Fortunately whether the code is public or not is not relevant.
However, what is relevant is that (1) it can be demonstrated that the
proposed draft is actually implementable, (2) interoperability can be
demonstrated between the various implementations.

Implementation reports are a good way to present to the IETF what was
implemented. For an extensive specification such as the draft at hand
I am certainly missing some detailed information in this regard.

Kind regards,