Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-lee-dnsop-recursion-performance-improvement-00.txt
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Fri, 11 December 2015 17:31 UTC
Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 6F40E1A901D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:31:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 tTjMt-w12GAN for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:31:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAB2A1A88C5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:30:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 35A31280129; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:30:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr [192.134.4.162]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3051B280127; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:30:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D92E4C0006; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:30:28 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:30:28 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: draft-lee-dnsop-recursion-performance-improvement.all@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20151211173028.GA27573@nic.fr>
References: <20151211172132.2410.88613.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151211172132.2410.88613.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux stretch/sid
X-Kernel: Linux 4.2.0-1-686-pae i686
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/eBD-7w4R_gliik49w3TNOjpSYII>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-lee-dnsop-recursion-performance-improvement-00.txt
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, 11 Dec 2015 17:31:01 -0000
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:21:32AM -0800, internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote a message of 42 lines which said: > Title : An approach to improve recursion performance > Authors : Xiaodong Lee > Hongtao Li > Haikuo Zhang > Peng Zuo > Filename : draft-lee-dnsop-recursion-performance-improvement-00.txt At the first reading, I do not see the difference between your RQID and a cookie, as documented in draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies (currently past working group last call and sent to the IESG). If there is a difference, and a reason why you just don't use DNS cookies, please document it.
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-lee-dnsop-recursion… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-lee-dnsop-recursion… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-lee-dnsop-recursion… zuopeng@cnnic.cn
- Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-lee-dnsop-recursion… Mark Andrews