Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-02.txt

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 20 July 2017 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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 9E63F131B2B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=PIM3QndZ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=QXKHpuze
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 F4vk-j-2Q2T7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EE93131AA9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCEA6BD996 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:09:10 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1500570550; bh=LQ8o4fofBeg+zmDU4AMJxWrTcPm8CJwUSJztKTRZKXI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=PIM3QndZA3Aaw2QdKwymADfr3won/phU/vlkydSeu6KyGk/z8RO2qVivy8AXBPt7q 4+g6NngaFFCMk20D5oafeiSjypK+ZOEGVlxSH+tuRTLJPUWTyp3HZdauMGHvMsEZad t0a1HRWmI+3dQKEw1QkYEfGixOqHH7KHbYkM8mFA=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vvRcNLVUhsaT for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:09:09 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:09:07 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1500570549; bh=LQ8o4fofBeg+zmDU4AMJxWrTcPm8CJwUSJztKTRZKXI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=QXKHpuzeDOyF/T7DxmCxZ1qruZ5T7VGTOhkKzc2AOT6cP6pkEwHL2jd4RGk4n4GO5 R21AqWRwiEqwjjewSr3WSD8W6v3tXPIXGplcNkscDoLxQYRlAPStvpkTwxaVCWwPzj n9AFVbPmAclWkIikyeOJUZWpsHSKp7Mko3RvzayQ=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170720170907.gksdgic47juhbn7e@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <148944868965.20421.13262969145873649331@ietfa.amsl.com> <235049030.6432.1500569125325.JavaMail.zimbra@nic.cz> <20170720165043.g5e7jprg2hmoanf2@mx4.yitter.info> <697159393.6506.1500569982281.JavaMail.zimbra@nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <697159393.6506.1500569982281.JavaMail.zimbra@nic.cz>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/_glZho04dIlzSQyBJ_reqPIUV3w>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:09:13 -0000

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 06:59:42PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > But it's certainly another step along the way to DNSbis by accident.
> 
> Would it be useful to make it not "by accident"?

Yes.  That was basically the point I was trying to make at the
beginning of today's session, about overall analysis. 

 > b) make this draft DNS-SD only, so it can fast forward...
>

I'm not keen on this.


> c) use the changed paradigm to work on DNSbis without the accident part?

I'm starting to wonder whether a bof is needed.  Maybe the IAB's
workshop will produce some fruit?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com