IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] raising the bar: requiring implementations

tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 28 March 2018 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
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 A45691273B1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 9EOlR3ezOZPW for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22f.google.com (mail-wr0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22f]) (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 CB154120047 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id d1so2643649wrj.13 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=K/nSiVg76HgTUbQnLYsMuukG7erhP4BPZFFLiQ+6Ax8=; b=raFBWe17Zrm0ByvRgkuvdlcnAKYsZSh0P3X2XcI9f+S4/CXBiXJhk9ncc1ibg8ZMvg KmYiygsxquxb84CXmgBiXYWRYN/m2jixyEA7MAEgD9mm0LfPP1HYyqBepxRpncfpHpTi 3IICbJsiU1J7dNsk6XODwOvbfH2matqGVjbVhaVHBuq0npUClO6m7owVY+miD0apBMLO bvgbGkVoIYvL5C9nbj8svKOQo+Xbd7XMDyQpH7DiA9FjyBGnsKcgydPmEySHZ3ARPTBx zyq5YcF7ZcudOSHZj2KaEyJMCC74it7l4wtfXospbLPxnW02+QUC0jmPqpmy/OLlJDl0 pD3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=K/nSiVg76HgTUbQnLYsMuukG7erhP4BPZFFLiQ+6Ax8=; b=fb2W2QKZERzIqCAJXZFMVZGk0VqttkIFyJwNCc3KnFParHXPuCSHmcbXTv955Lne3v N21CAjStZSa2x4bAwTOQ9gT7rn2BLY/ikz+eH/CyBWL66waJO5ISIk0CHw6MgxFlbwq7 OC3KhjDhUL3PGWaD/EC7z63ZPlzbXqgP6BEG/9zpL9V2QmfhUJqTN0X/mphJA0bdV6od CaoDP+1ruOhMk8sf2CI6YJEMPXDFxFWQw8LavpLfq+MatmH+cyaxKq3lMF3iVwYzo+Lb VdSURHXKR0UfuQEgHWDv3Iz1aVaAPnAivRQMTuYc0kUYFi833DlLKB6oYXscxdlufqlx SKZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7F2kVV9CYCrgsvNXmiGpfApdObZomC4DnqiXvOgyNedYthMpl+K k96gvrfSP3gqp7bavxGSDJHL7CI57svQ3QFO4fU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+co94MCtAgX1/qbqKTq0PhqvnvS9sj1lRiaIM3x61nDgQyW0Ti1TPDvDwpAJtuedLilJ1OFAllfo4A0xBk3bk=
X-Received: by 10.223.156.210 with SMTP id h18mr3492224wre.109.1522251185392; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:33:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.154.52 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180328152433.GB1788@server.ds9a.nl>
References: <20180324110756.GE69302@vurt.meerval.net> <9a03dbfb-a4c7-9ca2-22c4-d00a0d0d0223@nlnetlabs.nl> <CADyWQ+G7oR5M9pHgj5Ty+4yL1nsep2mpujLiE7nf__kVmN13fQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180328151939.GA19504@jurassic> <20180328152433.GB1788@server.ds9a.nl>
From: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:33:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+GPL5EEDQBrDKYnXHTbvuFvb1hC5b_mfs+B+UbD3XXxKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>
Cc: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4030439bf242a17ac05687ab9aa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ikbDGcQwKrDvH7Q7cYJBmuurOS8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] raising the bar: requiring implementations
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:33:09 -0000

An enterprise company with rather large zone which update often are "highly
interested" in MIXFR.
But we may be the exception rather than the rule.

Tim

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:24 AM, bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:49:39PM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> > I'd raise the bar even higher, to see complete implementation in a major
> > open source DNS implementation when it applies. Sometimes implementation
> > problems are very revealing (client-subnet should have gone through
> > this).
>
> Well to allow the one remaining closed source DNS implementation some room,
> I think we could live with a 'demo' from them if they'd want to. This would
> lead to an implementation report, much like is customary in the BGP WGs.
>
> But otherwise, +100.
>
> This might go for MIXFR which we are discussing now btw.  It looks nice in
> theory, but I wonder about the practice, and if the people who want this
> (TLD operators I guess) would be willing to test it in simulated production
> to see if it fits their needs.
>
>         Bert
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email