IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation-03.txt

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 13 September 2022 13:47 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 A4A0FC157B3E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 06:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dSqSEwbhXMP6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 06:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F29BEC157B33 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 06:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id w8so20186591lft.12 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 06:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=vY9N3t+k1sG1Ra+WoCJEgJJusDkINNu/KztA2JAuxiY=; b=nWe1CHZ/lx+GXEnxTfV0sT/wu9+7ohMXp61W/ui61E08GzO3r4W1ETOLNqwXiAod/f UhNwuT8GtqDgmhjOwn7boJ5JO0SI5O7PVkr0TVV5+jEOOn2epZ35ynB4OULvG8fSoIl3 /DAeSXd0rDpoSE5qz9hlUPXDzbtXKOiFLpqARNATPHi455f63H8MkLNSOlNB0b03cZF1 YxYw7yq22slEtGgkpdEZjqGOw5mjlfFaV3Ik5CQC6i8AVtceWldAjZUB1tFsDdtSo/9C kCfNDvKJfJCegXD8PWNIxNUpe4iNYrkRvOsq9rtVsejzLoZZ0weq9rrgZRG1xhyu0WyL NA/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=vY9N3t+k1sG1Ra+WoCJEgJJusDkINNu/KztA2JAuxiY=; b=CZ0+vBoTMXeo4Ekzmoxp3FuGO99iWkZg2r6IgabeDRrIg2B1UTPE+VIFpU8/xJ/rnR sUvwBh88lMCgrmlgdOjJoPe6I1K+pF3+tpoAnEnmDReun1vodCu7CnGDT1zPrdpmHfWA 8JS2bsSsymPI7il+7VDzncfQGFsAZ7JPfG249sTfrZXEMgTEks3XYY9DADm4T2RuUVjr ScrWS23WEGVGqfQGYmB05C/kfW/BZKjGd0WQ7a+VYKiQak0T8kRXwWkWBqdMmr7xUWgC pa0pRGiL8/cMNWVYpqpdzSkd3dFy6YgBUw+kEEklwy2ombYiH/SZCc+LsbqMsRwY6fRd bfyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2sJDhy5S1Q72KZ9rNttGG51n9cuqLdnvoxSf2E34RUuwpZU0dF Oz0JLtAB2vW/s66LiRST+7Ud+OkykWjrKiY5/CMAWyFX
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5Czx/a5thPnZk8P+4meI7JoM5WDEufQFwhtNoWslWwuYvJEHmlE7K9sfolCZsHUqVOzRyC6+RvR3KMKyv7ldY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:458:b0:499:f7ac:14e4 with SMTP id y24-20020a056512045800b00499f7ac14e4mr4958753lfk.230.1663076875845; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 06:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <166251411453.51793.7893145834491865444@ietfa.amsl.com> <a8b7e07e-c11e-f8a7-7552-f61edc83adda@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <a8b7e07e-c11e-f8a7-7552-f61edc83adda@isc.org>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 09:47:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+FUgD+1Hj6RwWN8f-i=gi8Ao0tpHX4rzy7CWsKfik1gJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Petr Špaček <pspacek@isc.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006b44f105e88f42dd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/lKO9lFBxVvnjaD-FzKOQkCpKYuA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 13 Sep 2022 13:47:58 -0000

Petr,

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 7:18 AM Petr Špaček <pspacek@isc.org> wrote:

> On 07. 09. 22 3:28, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the
> IETF.
> >
> >          Title           : Delegation Revalidation by DNS Resolvers
> >          Authors         : Shumon Huque
> >                            Paul Vixie
> >                            Ralph Dolmans
> >    Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation-03.txt
> >    Pages           : 7
> >    Date            : 2022-09-06
> >
> > Abstract:
> >     This document recommends improved DNS [RFC1034] [RFC1035] resolver
> >     behavior with respect to the processing of Name Server (NS) resource
> >     record sets (RRset) during iterative resolution.  When following a
> >     referral response from an authoritative server to a child zone, DNS
> >     resolvers should explicitly query the authoritative NS RRset at the
> >     apex of the child zone and cache this in preference to the NS RRset
> >     on the parent side of the zone cut.  Resolvers should also
> >     periodically revalidate the child delegation by re-quering the parent
> >     zone at the expiration of the TTL of the parent side NS RRset.
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation/
>
> I wonder about this Datatracker line:
>
>         Intended RFC status             (None)
>
>
This just means the chairs have not selected the RFC status.
For me, I like to wait until we reach working group last call
and we listen to the working group.


What do authors plan, or WG leans to?
>


>
>
> Speaking with my BIND hat on, I would prefer Informational.
>
> Protocol in this draft is pretty complex, and so far the sky did not
> fall despite resolvers not implementing it.
>
> Based on this observation I think it should not be mandatory, and also
> that parent-centric DNS resolver implementations should not be
> "outlawed" by this (to-be) RFC.
>
>
This is good feedback, and it helps us.  We should also hear from
other implementers about their opinion on this.

thanks
tim



> --
> Petr Špaček
> Internet Systems Consortium
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email