Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Fri, 05 June 2020 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.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 5EE623A0B8A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 10:41:03 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 VJCPJhmIcXBA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 10:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8991B3A0BA1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 10:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux-9daj.localnet (dhcp-166.access.rits.tisf.net [24.104.150.166]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (1024 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C05F3B07D2; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 17:40:57 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Cc: "Wessels, Duane" <dwessels=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 17:40:56 +0000
Message-ID: <5645885.BqfGRvd2fk@linux-9daj>
Organization: none
In-Reply-To: <B339E4C9-5F28-41A7-99C7-5B8ECC9CF14C@verisign.com>
References: <159123820967.306.12808925210425325877@ietfa.amsl.com> <B339E4C9-5F28-41A7-99C7-5B8ECC9CF14C@verisign.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ZIbOdy87-K3YfuSJXFcJq0Dkm3c>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt
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: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 17:41:03 -0000

On Friday, 5 June 2020 17:37:56 UTC Wessels, Duane wrote:
> ...
> 
> There is also the question of in-domain vs sibling-domain glue.  RFC 8499
> (Terminology) notes that "Glue records for sibling domains are allowed, but
> not necessary."  Should in-domain glue take priority over sibling-domain
> glue?  Can sibling-domain glue be omitted even if it would fit?

yes, and yes. and if truncation occurs after all in-domain glue has been 
added, then the TC bit need not be set. we should not force a retry over TCP 
to get nonessential data (which is available by means other than a referral.)

-- 
Paul