Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Wed, 13 November 2019 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.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 2936E120127 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 14:50:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 Z4WSjXi99zeh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 14:50:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E220120096 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 14:50:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9F2F922C75; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 14:50:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CADyWQ+FG7qzPnLkUH7mSBca=1NfXy6YduHD4UdmcfXFjD8xC6g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9_gVuwAEthi9HU2wdw+Vf+STCwvXr4wOB4PRD_Hej6JPPbuQ@mail.gmail.com> <yblr241z4s8.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <CA+9_gVvqqKwrkM7WYuEGGzfy+DSm3TzwmCDXA+AyyQ3c0Hr8wg@mail.gmail.com> <yblzhgzhd8b.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <94DB2B7E-31E5-4D52-A8AA-F2354209F250@dukhovni.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 14:50:55 -0800
In-Reply-To: <94DB2B7E-31E5-4D52-A8AA-F2354209F250@dukhovni.org> (Viktor Dukhovni's message of "Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:55:10 -0500")
Message-ID: <ybl4kz7gzlc.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Yu6LF2HKXSq6LagkdLE_S0BJcwE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error
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: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 22:50:59 -0000

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>; writes:

> > On Nov 13, 2019, at 12:56 PM, Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>; wrote:
> > 
> > I added this text to the next version:
> > 
> >      <t>When the response grows beyond the requestor's UDP payload
> >      size <xref target="RFC6891" />, servers SHOULD truncate messages
> >      by dropping EDE options before dropping other data from
> >      packets.  Implementations SHOULD set the truncation bit when
> >      dropping EDE options.</t>
> 
> Are you sure that setting TC=1 when EDE doesn't fit is the right
> trade-off?  I'm somewhat skeptical...

Well, that's what the other specs say.  We could break from that, you're
right, and it's a discussion I was going to mention in Singapore for
that matter.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI