IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Consensus suggestion for EDE and the TC bit

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Thu, 21 November 2019 08:39 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
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 270EE120801 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:39:40 -0800 (PST)
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 lvD9Oj-PhV6h for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:39:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C701D120A3D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:39:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (dhcp-9208.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.146.8]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F3CBA2DAD8; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:39:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Cc: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <yblzhgpwwit.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <CAHbrMsBR6LZ880RXPDW2L+c_gcC6Tpg+L_c78OZvxJs4Gc4pUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:39:16 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CAHbrMsBR6LZ880RXPDW2L+c_gcC6Tpg+L_c78OZvxJs4Gc4pUQ@mail.gmail.com> (Ben Schwartz's message of "Thu, 21 Nov 2019 15:37:49 +0800")
Message-ID: <yblv9rdwrm3.fsf@wu.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/d_2bEOfb4_KkAijLR2X1_0sNF2M>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Consensus suggestion for EDE and the TC bit
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, 21 Nov 2019 08:39:40 -0000

> I think our simplest and most appealing option would be to treat EDE
> exactly like any existing EDNS Option (i.e. set the TC bit).

For the record, I'm just fine with this.  People that *want* a separate
signal should speak up please and voice their reasons why having just
the TC bit is unacceptable too.

We need to come to a decision about this, and that will require everyone
with an opinion to chime in.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email