Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-00.txt

Paul Vixie <> Tue, 14 November 2017 09:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00873128D19 for <>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:26:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sQ07ncLYOzJf for <>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:26:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5DC71286C7 for <>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:26:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:2c81:6cd7:5872:4e2f] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:2c81:6cd7:5872:4e2f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8E8661FA2; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:26:00 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:25:59 -0800
From: Paul Vixie <>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.20 (Windows/20171012)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Lawrence <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-00.txt
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:26:02 -0000

Dave Lawrence wrote:
> Dave Lawrence writes:
>> The main changes, based on previous feedback, are:
>> * Clarifying what the action is for Standards Track;
>> * Describing the algorithm previously proposed (and still included) as
>>    one example way of achieving the goals; and,
>> * Adding a rough proposal for an EDNS option that could be used for
>>    explicit signalling.
>> That last item will be fleshed out more if there's demonstrated
>> interest from implementers in having such a thing.
> At the moment I'll observe there are no open issues against the draft,
> which is my comically passive-aggressive way of pointing out that it
> is obviously perfect and so let's just move it along to Last Call.

i apologize for my silence. there's been a lot going on in this WG.

> This is now your opportunity to correspondingly observe that someone
> is wrong on the Internet and to respond appropriately.  At the very
> least, we'd like to know whether there is sufficient support for
> pursuing the EDNS option or just to take it back out (and leave the
> rest of the obviously perfect document as-is).

this document must not proceed without explicit signaling, because this 
practice must not grow without explicit signaling.

> Thanks in advance for any feedback,

you're welcome in advance!

P Vixie