Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Mon, 10 October 2016 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.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 C9625129573 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 7Sn4GrIduzao for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [38.117.134.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36F56129764 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1034) id 05E2C284E5A; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 17:33:19 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 17:33:19 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20161010173318.GT4670@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <CAAiTEH9Rbw4u3gV9GULQ-8WdoPHf3SXQMTRY+CtfUGrNQSGAWw@mail.gmail.com> <20161010023251.241F1560C844@rock.dv.isc.org> <CACfw2hiV9+qQ_OysHAQ4jd4fJtN2a=mrHqDiTkg4JArQ_LoGtQ@mail.gmail.com> <20161010145642.401EB56260C8@rock.dv.isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161010145642.401EB56260C8@rock.dv.isc.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/cuTprCLgsMWtAfedx4EzXLmD3f4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dnsop@ietf.org
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, 10 Oct 2016 17:33:23 -0000

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 01:56:42AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:

> If the IETF was setting servers that went and checked DNS servers
> and informed the operators then the IETF would be in the business
> of enforcing protocols.  At this stage I don't see the IETF doing
> that nor is this document asking the IETF to do that.
> 
> The is a difference between innovation and not exercising care /
> lazyness.
> 
> Returing FORMERR because you see a EDNS flag you don't understand
> is not innovation.
> 
> Returing FORMERR because you see a EDNS option you don't understand
> is not innovation.
> 
> Returing FORMERR because you see a EDNS version you don't understand
> is not innovation.
> 
> If there was anything innovative in what I'm seeing I'd be all for
> it but there isn't.

Amen.  This draft documents widely problematic behaviour that is
seen much too often.  It is good to have it all written down in
one place.

-- 
	Viktor.