IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis

Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> Tue, 27 October 2015 09:18 UTC

Return-Path: <shane@time-travellers.org>
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 7FD891A1B71 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 02:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 m55-5ZKj6lVh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 02:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time-travellers.nl.eu.org (c.time-travellers.nl.eu.org [IPv6:2a02:2770::21a:4aff:fea3:eeaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CD871A1B6B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 02:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [240c:f:1:4000:c68e:8fff:fef5:64bd] (helo=pallas.home.time-travellers.org) by time-travellers.nl.eu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <shane@time-travellers.org>) id 1Zr0OY-0005B8-GW; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:18:19 +0000
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:18:09 +0800
From: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <20151027171809.3d73ec85@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
In-Reply-To: <20151027081954.GB23486@sources.org>
References: <561813AA.30409@gmail.com> <562F2A35.1010909@gmail.com> <20151027081954.GB23486@sources.org>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.0 (GTK+ 2.24.28; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/fK_A8N6gf8QWXdY4GXMSX1B6nmU>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis
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: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:18:25 -0000

Stephane and all,

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:19:55 +0100
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 03:39:33AM -0400,
>  Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote 
>  a message of 36 lines which said:
> 
> > The WGLC ended on this, and there was strong consensus to move this
> > document forward.  
> 
> Can you clarify what was the resolution for the problem of matching
> replies to questions? I believe that most people (like me) are happy
> with the ID+QNAME+QCLASS+transport_tuple of
> <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/YCkm0bc3c0XjnU71kyGU8V8SGZg>
> but it seems we may have at least a dissent
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/egQ4zEMacf_JmohgNNguOBXjVJA>

Sara's proposal does seem to take into account Mark's concern, since
she specified using the QNAME/QCLASS/QTYPE only if they are present in
the reply.

I guess Mark's argument might be that since we have to take into
account the ID-only case, why not add extra code complexity to deal
with ID+QNAME+QCLASS+QTYPE matching?

I have no strong feelings either way on this, so (like Stephane) I am
happy with the proposed matching.

Cheers,

--
Shane

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email