Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale

Jared Mauch <> Thu, 07 September 2017 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EEE713235C for <>; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 15:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I0F3p0ggq4pK for <>; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 15:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C585E13235A for <>; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 15:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 162) id 71254540D94; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:12:41 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 18:12:41 -0400
From: Jared Mauch <>
To: Paul Vixie <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <8295055.TIQDDEhZcU@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8295055.TIQDDEhZcU@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.0 (2017-09-02)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 22:12:43 -0000

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:29:47PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
> if the draft being considered was clear on two points, i'd support adoption.
> first, this feature is controversial, and there is not consensus favouring its 
> implementation, merely its documentation.
> second, the initiator must indicate its intent to use data beyond its TTL, and 
> the responder must assent to this, and that otherwise, including in the 
> default case where such signaling is absent, data shall not be used beyond its 
> TTL.

	Would you see the querying application informing you of intent via 
option code saying "If I'm unable to talk to you once TTL expires, I may serve 
your last known good answer"?

	What would a server then do if this intent were known?  serve some
alternate data, or even return REFUSED?  I could see sending a secure notify
to anyone who requested the QNAME after change, but holding this state may
end up with complexity similar to what's some have seen with ECS.

	- Jared

Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from
clue++;      |  My statements are only mine.