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

"Ralf Weber" <dns@fl1ger.de> Tue, 03 December 2019 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <dns@fl1ger.de>
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 A2254120044 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 14:22:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.435
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 ltslqDrYiytS for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 14:22:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.guxx.net (smtp.guxx.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:a0:322c::25:42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 100DA12003F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 14:22:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix, from userid 107) id 02C395F40B6A; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:22:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [172.19.216.63] (unknown [111.223.111.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA8865F401BB; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:22:02 +0100 (CET)
From: "Ralf Weber" <dns@fl1ger.de>
To: "Michael StJohns" <msj@nthpermutation.com>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 06:21:58 +0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13r5655)
Message-ID: <A2BE987F-09ED-4992-977C-FB3A702B8FE5@fl1ger.de>
In-Reply-To: <07cdee93-eb69-9a67-65d8-ea85e82a8761@nthpermutation.com>
References: <yblzhgpwwit.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <07cdee93-eb69-9a67-65d8-ea85e82a8761@nthpermutation.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/dow5u8twiRyK9JVvPythZ2RIJF8>
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 22:22:07 -0000

Moin!

On 3 Dec 2019, at 3:15, Michael StJohns wrote:
> From 2181:
>
>>   The TC bit should be set in responses only when an RRSet is 
>> required
>>     as a part of the response, but could not be included in its 
>> entirety.
>>     The TC bit should not be set merely because some extra 
>> information
>>     could have been included, but there was insufficient room.
>
> I finally got a chance to go back and do some reading and found the 
> above.
>
> The way I read this is that setting the bit simply because you 
> couldn't include diagnostic info is a no-no.   Let's not do it.
I disagree. The EDNS0 OPT RRSet is needed and thus if can not be fitted 
entirely a TC bit has to be set. Also 2181 was before EDNS0 so IMHO it 
doesn’t apply here anyway. EDE is all is new stuff we have to decide 
over what do with it now and not some ancient RFC. And a lot of people 
(including me) have said that they, because of the rare cases this 
appears, see TC as the right solution as it is simple and backwards 
compatible. EDE already is complex we should not increase it complexity 
for a rare corner case.

So long
-Ralf
—--
Ralf Weber