IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 27 October 2015 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
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 067891A1BDB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 02:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_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 0pnP9p28pEue for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 02:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (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 8BC151A1BF3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 02:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iody8 with SMTP id y8so58717599iod.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 02:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HE8GSBar2ma1asqsmd172UXKWQOOFC50H7LenRe4m+I=; b=djmA5CihK7JtLce9ljxt/UL86A2TZq2CI1PDvD6iUNog+evBx6B6iqi7uBdsCyS86D 3/PmCpjcDFJFsSDrRItj1KRL33A4U/K3wW6xKOAcNA1++/714BKjsgYonD+SnNLDR5qe B8bMI/kjEtZsmn83gHkLBWvnRsIEno5u7YGxLLOYiuJHAIohugOMq9ztOmI+ggoxs6DF 0V69f8v8118QwDdeuRRrooeWQk5WMMpfx0+04hKK3QCNTBnSptFjl0J2gDYQJJ+g+IvE qcy5NwBRdzu8XEfdR+OzMYAt3naBhWhv3iJ93eWKqxT+zTpkhuCBJLSgdx46WeStv/EW fCBQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.33.211 with SMTP id h202mr10464102ioh.108.1445937610867; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 02:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from still.local ([184.13.114.26]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id r28sm13021485ioe.6.2015.10.27.02.20.09 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Oct 2015 02:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
References: <561813AA.30409@gmail.com> <562F2A35.1010909@gmail.com> <20151027081954.GB23486@sources.org> <20151027171809.3d73ec85@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <562F41C9.7060401@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 05:20:09 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/42.0a2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151027171809.3d73ec85@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/g0fbATCAptbDEELl9Ekunokvqrg>
Cc: 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 09:20:13 -0000

There is an -04 version which missed the cut off but will be the one we 
submit:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DNSOP/draft-5966-bis/master/draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-04.txt

https://github.com/DNSOP/draft-5966-bis/pull/24/files#diff-1

I believe Sara addresses all concerns.

tim

On 10/27/15 5:18 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
> 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