Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-song-atr-large-resp

"John Dickinson" <jad@sinodun.com> Mon, 21 January 2019 10:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jad@sinodun.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 B87F7130FFE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 02:46:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sinodun.com
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 UNgwvvSC0BjX for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 02:46:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com (balrog.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AC0E131133 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 02:46:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sinodun.com ; s=balrog-2018; h=Date:Subject:To:From; bh=nv9WphkpuVoN15eblbZx7Ghgrth4K44/hWja3GKP3og=; b=kEWuOPnFem2vIzlFEu47R4i+6m 7EYDORCGMnq6DMIHxXGoxps6uCTu9Upaof8j2asJCWyXEYxqrkZgVMN/V/H8eJ61p6KP+/UUFigQ/ Vj4o3sweS5IgtvlbymxF1EzBeb4JJVdBAir2rm5H/ibA12aB12uGRSvsoTDhRSXqAruRK1RBFO4td NeashX9528p1JlLHJAqJTdJNVNUYBoEKITbR4ZHYTMtns8ESBn2eOr4RRj3DIvK2VomjKAk8z2ONF Cfb45GIxzLe6251FPCxe4AlZoWjktpUUR8cizqe0+AFmbWpZ8WtGog5cnliJFejToFzj3XG0GAdcB jPdEBlCA==;
Received: from [2001:b98:204:102:fff1::f145] (port=56373 helo=[192.168.12.13]) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <jad@sinodun.com>) id 1glX6K-000621-J8 for dnsop@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:46:48 +0000
From: "John Dickinson" <jad@sinodun.com>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:46:42 +0000
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.3r5579)
Message-ID: <E4DE90CC-E9D6-49B9-AA5C-C1D4EA772411@sinodun.com>
In-Reply-To: <628F00A6-075F-40F1-A3D7-0C93BD88268F@fl1ger.de>
References: <BCACF554-8BE6-49BC-B75A-BCED776F5189@NLnetLabs.nl> <4A75C4E3-F74F-46DB-9A8A-879C0BB79190@powerdns.com> <52CC68F4-231A-4002-A615-12F2F044342E@isc.org> <628F00A6-075F-40F1-A3D7-0C93BD88268F@fl1ger.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_FCAA24B3-69FC-4937-AC5B-11C808D5C0C1_="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -21
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/asnZw6mZJUOGhQGgR4GLhDX7lZc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-song-atr-large-resp
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: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:46:57 -0000

+1. I we should not adopt this draft for all the reasons all ready presented in the thread and also the draft text regarding "moving all DNS over TCP”.

regards
John


On 21 Jan 2019, at 10:41, Ralf Weber wrote:

> Moin!
>
> On 21 Jan 2019, at 11:26, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>>> On 21 Jan 2019, at 11:22, Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> wrote:
>>> Please do not adopt.
>>
>> +1 to everything that Peter said.  I’ve been opposing ATR draft from the very beginning.  We can’t be removing EDNS workarounds and at the same time slap another workaround into the DNS.
> Another +1 for not adopting this draft. I wonder if there is a coincidence that the end of the adoption call is on the same date as DNS Flag day ;-).
>
> If I recall the presentation that lead to this correct it is mostly an IPv6 problem and given the nature of DNS it will only occur if all name servers are on v6. Having one v6 name server that will respond correct with fragments also solves the problem. I think the problem space is to narrow to burden this problem on all resolvers.
>
> So long
> -Ralf
> —--
> Ralf Weber
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


John Dickinson

https://sinodun.com

Sinodun Internet Technologies Ltd.
Magdalen Centre
Oxford Science Park
Robert Robinson Avenue
Oxford OX4 4GA
U.K.