Re: [DNSOP] Comment on section 2 of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05.txt

Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com> Tue, 27 September 2016 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <shuque@gmail.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 4327F12B4B9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 5GafY9TGf2kj for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x235.google.com (mail-wm0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::235]) (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 4B30612B49E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x235.google.com with SMTP id l132so31473913wmf.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=C6HA2vtcwzzMOF3uLBEZ7VIdpU9EHaGMYQ4SY5UpNF4=; b=c0/MaBTFB7GDWlWC0aEXvuhFU+6CH94MRtDD5zWrJhpsaL0ReFpACJ6lsfzweF6QmR JkoXkGfmkW0sDbPspXpdVeJo5/ds20yYGpnCSj+Mu9s1ggKSVH8ldj1x2hrg+F9yxnGv LZN+co1LVF+97MnFQFYeOH1o3nm/Xc3Bum3H912ry1u5byTYFzz6tfsEpx4dUF/NFl7/ 9PWkeTmiCW/eLs2Xc8k1hAPvD/G4kEyj+UBIqKwmpsMcBEwe6vPuYERrSMXnYMDHQ+Ii SlmSDHIcKvL7b60uDcqFZhaRzBVosSnsc3J0wIENBgr6xsOsrU3tzqkVNQVNJVYMUS5R lX3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=C6HA2vtcwzzMOF3uLBEZ7VIdpU9EHaGMYQ4SY5UpNF4=; b=iuY5FxZlTto9nPvhmNs1JPVefAZcwhEAFbWIvxUZjl3GPFjcPtZlEKYhTHF166owxQ +6UpnFmnbDCgvQh68el7EdJVG66q9Ut6Csky3u6+FGdVwaUC6TkX1iRPTWcK9MAO0Aog zZArJyQhKIbXQOmNd6vw9G6yD0tyTexueDIYs1Bf9LIptsMmuX70vcu/vu/2pTncS5/W ixY55crqSS0LWQ7EgvMktaxklZdkbx7aX3Ua7OkK1SF2InWtXIA4Cz4IfhdBGfx4amP+ i6/V1KzYufwBXSjQWtACh0qNmY65E0Hb2h3JUdpwJbQxeZL4KEtzxZupmMeKV1O2UG3g 8HXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOk7B+bnPkncw+v4fCFG4bxfpSKZ11YIXbtW+qs3Fncqp+Qx4I1bLJC7KA1xZ1OFsvQckeXa3hh1zPKZw==
X-Received: by 10.194.243.10 with SMTP id wu10mr23807184wjc.130.1475005031756; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.165.168 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <59500ec16f1041558d0b9f6646094ebf@SC58MEXGP032.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com>
References: <29B4A430-80C7-44C8-A6FA-54A1560D3FD7@icann.org> <20160927004928.22EAE5515C31@rock.dv.isc.org> <89B42AE2-0377-42A4-B943-E65C52B7CB55@icann.org> <CAHPuVdVneekn9NL_u72KFk7aFQ8uWLkUDqAaW9c46SG-KDVuMg@mail.gmail.com> <d1da7014063b4525a25502408d9fbdc1@SC58MEXGP032.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com> <CAHPuVdVV_fqaiMuLuFKudFaT=FXTKE57+aYuf_HS+x-0OkOk0g@mail.gmail.com> <59500ec16f1041558d0b9f6646094ebf@SC58MEXGP032.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com>
From: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:37:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHPuVdVfBDahj0aS4Ez_qK_Z87Qqn3_cg3y6aEbVgzpCGX_ZMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "White, Andrew" <Andrew.White2@charter.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141a202f5d417053d825e4d
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/dNeVg_J6j5uGUaj_6I9aprv2HHk>
Cc: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Comment on section 2 of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:37:15 -0000

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM, White, Andrew <Andrew.White2@charter.com>
wrote:

> Hi Shumon,
>
>
>
> True. When a resolver gets an NXDOMAIN for, say x.example.com, would it
> better to say the resolver SHOULD drop from cache all descendents of
> x.example.com, or MAY?
>
>
>
> It may be computationally expensive to search cache to remove cached
> NXDOMAIN responses below x.example.com, and I see no harm in letting
> those cached entries expire as their TTL runs out.
>

It depends on the implementation of the cache. I guess you missed the ~ 100
message thread on this very topic from earlier this year! :-)

-- 
Shumon Huque