Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.txt

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 05 March 2019 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.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 96617128B36 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 09:51:27 -0800 (PST)
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, SPF_PASS=-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 LpMqu7EQMVz6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 09:51:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E96DB129AA0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 09:51:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 09:51:23 -0800
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 09:51:23 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHU0ipbalD7ZbTcJEyvKh3uI0ig6KX8pL2AgAAxYgCAAAE5gIAAE3YAgAAGxQCAAA6PAIAAoBYAgAA2RYCAAANigA==
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 17:51:23 +0000
Message-ID: <C032EE5D-2921-4755-9803-FBE44977B665@icann.org>
References: <155094804613.28045.8648150477440044197@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+9_gVscCzr0S8A0Z23q0V1B+BZeLtDoZRSKyEJDPZ3P=KT-tw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaYo5JH6vf+djEn0O=YGhLV2AkytMg_eKQmWn=Pma5yBFQ@mail.gmail.com> <4253851.Zqd2zPpPcC@linux-9daj> <92355508-D5AC-46DC-8FF5-C1C4155601D8@isc.org> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1903042240330.32161@bofh.nohats.ca> <CAL9jLabYgYco9JjBmo9g6DHjJ4Z3SsnqpDu=_WMWeo3mSNj-gA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1903050912170.6450@bofh.nohats.ca> <CAL9jLaaUYni-+tyCf0WvXgsKTBSDOC_DSYP92mD1gGbNrjG4xQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaaUYni-+tyCf0WvXgsKTBSDOC_DSYP92mD1gGbNrjG4xQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <F52969B7578EC9478F745E85FA7BCA1F@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/aemaby0EgbMAdMFMxVXbj0WdcHw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.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: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 17:51:28 -0000

On Mar 5, 2019, at 9:39 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> So, sorry I added an example set and we rat-holed on those.
> 
> My point is that the recursive reoslver has no idea why an authoritative
> is unreachable and that doing anything like sending stale records is 
> going to cause unintended problems.

Those problems were not intended by the authoritative servers. Not sending stale records will also cause problems not intended by the users of the resolver that is serving stale data.

Maybe the draft should add a sentence about this shift of "unintended problems" from authoritative to resolvers in the end of the Abstract, and again in the Introduction. It seems like people in the WG may be missing this shift.

--Paul Hoffman