IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] some 2015-era thoughts about RFC 7706 -bis

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Thu, 25 July 2019 06:35 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.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 8920A120334 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 23:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 gEftZAnncE5c for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 23:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7DBD1202B0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 23:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux-9daj.localnet (vixp1.redbarn.org [24.104.150.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CCAC892E8; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:34:59 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:34:57 +0000
Message-ID: <2557522.8MW2NnM4yy@linux-9daj>
Organization: none
In-Reply-To: <20190725054450.GC92610@isc.org>
References: <3673081.H4C9ml97Qf@linux-9daj> <20190725054450.GC92610@isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="nextPart8548554.8ohsdlxmVN"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/bCYE8g3XUpHgCNTUwOnSaAskvLM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] some 2015-era thoughts about RFC 7706 -bis
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: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:35:03 -0000

On Thursday, 25 July 2019 05:44:50 UTC Evan Hunt wrote:
> ...
> 
> But, it's Mostly Harmless.  The implementation cost can be zero if you want
> it to be; it's just a server configuration.  At worst, it's a waste of the
> time that's been spent talking about it (with the zone transfer code that
> fell out of it turning the effort to a net positive, I hope).

the presence of the logic; the capability itself, has a complexity cost, imposed by hooks in 
the surrounding code. if used, the cost rises.

bert has argued pretty cogently about the dns camel. i won't repeat any of that here, 
except, you can correctly treat complexity as mass we all carry.

see also:

https://daverupert.com/2018/09/if-statements-should-cost-10000/[1] 

-- 
Paul

--------
[1] https://daverupert.com/2018/09/if-statements-should-cost-10000/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email