Re: [DNSOP] Closing out issues in draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Fri, 16 October 2015 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 605D71A9163 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 uabplE_RK487 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22c.google.com (mail-io0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58BAD1A6F9E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iodv82 with SMTP id v82so129920130iod.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eTDNUDVaFKwuouTSy8ry9A5PwZTzJZt0WZZcqpDCLzE=; b=GfIJNpZEqa4WMwp8DBdgzntVhuPGrLuItNHyYOrUrPMTU7NhLC6JTrbU4x+K8QS+PL bAimp/4xS0cpXcGzcPdFWumAnxKUx4C9qIcobZ9f9efjUD672RsqFO6gG2e3VnysAQ+U DQmXBJFlJNO5dn3pcbrFvxeXyFJfO7bdfCGfHMW47+xoxdUnie3L6PNQKjA+J8NVJd6i XvPxrQrnrV9ale6t6IEvpnKknVNCFDILs1UF23NflGSh8ntNTZWXiatQqo6pOVZYxD0g egNVTbSgn/+NPevrVNv6ypIJMcyPbRdHccXJhCeNddSkJvkHAnh0AZ7lDSyILdu6miCp S70A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.132.217 with SMTP id o86mr17937603ioi.172.1445014124830; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.140.12 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <56211942.20206@redbarn.org>
References: <8149BC4D-F11E-4E4F-BBB8-C38D865A4184@vpnc.org> <20151016161831.58bdf78d@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <56211942.20206@redbarn.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:48:44 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: sNJ7hnZmNziRr94X99rvE8K-9r8
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqcxjC=zS8tj6tKGX18UeEFm6GHcyRhjC7AFdh3x9-L=vA@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/cdNVr8CCAtyDsjKk9OGtxZwmYqQ>
Cc: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Closing out issues in draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:48:46 -0000

At Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:35:30 -0700,
Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:

> > I have separate issue, which is this text:
> >
> >     The priming query MUST be sent over UDP (section 6.1.3.2 of
> >     [RFC1123]).
> >
> > This seems like a super-strong recommendation that doesn't actually
> > help anything in operation.  Further, it seems to conflict with a
> > general desire to make TCP the equal of UDP in DNS.
>
> i do not share, or approve of, any such "general desire". i think the
> text is correct as written.

Although the existence of the "general desire" might be debatable, I
think Shane has a valid point.  The requirement level of the TCP
support has been already tightened in RFC5966 (from a SHOULD in
RFC1123 to REQUIRED), so it doesn't make much sense to me to use a
MUST in this document referring to the older RFC.  At the very least,
if we want to keep the MUST, there should be a different reason than
the reference to RFC1123.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya