Re: [DNSOP] 答复: 答复: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-song-atr-large-resp-00.txt

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 22 September 2017 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 691BA134458 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 06:58:46 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=dznMzn1R; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=Fa0UYMbl
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 XHbC-hU-h4eJ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 06:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14A1A134456 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 06:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 562F3BEDA1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:58:44 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1506088724; bh=uEjPb1ijeSxSRQKDL8TgAaicsN11CTJegkPko6k35P4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=dznMzn1REcM6KAKPGZYNJ/GGraXpVBOo73v0BlgyMGNCFUDpcIig1QXPxfOxN84+6 SGOmFmCJ/VHk+5MJ5uXSF4KkWCBHGOjf3DBLWYMsH0JB3GLXSNahblpD5jUCSTQ2CI WRZW3Yv9+qBrJuLQMjI7pbcsBUzYeY0MnFUmCTMg=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LvmJbBXKOr8D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:58:42 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 09:58:42 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1506088722; bh=uEjPb1ijeSxSRQKDL8TgAaicsN11CTJegkPko6k35P4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Fa0UYMblvdtemoWHKQfPdvKnp2c9b4o3/aZkRxC3Nv83tnRjrr7p4KGkveKRi5KBk r4Fi8K5nYK9/DMH+wzf8puJ+dfAh0bugxva7DRfv9ok66ByzKNAfoRaMj7oKaW+4nM j9JS+3Xo36QiSPIxmfgEaAmG6As3fu3vmvnBtqcc=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170922135842.5wy4fjrzy6zhgahz@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <150509601027.9852.16967877638602485585@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAAObRXJ6wJGCXkbKVkNmQCJ8NccBT63A8-9-LiRVZCFsDicchw@mail.gmail.com> <CACfw2hhaKTyfJfjQ5-_kfqiHX1oX+9P6mUWD06B87y_2ysdztA@mail.gmail.com> <045b01d33288$d3fadad0$7bf09070$@cn> <59C34510.4080705@redbarn.org> <048701d332a8$6f944980$4ebcdc80$@cn> <59C47601.5030804@redbarn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <59C47601.5030804@redbarn.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/mpEy0uZelR6bw0JWXz4povbyIYI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgIOetlOWkjTogIEZ3ZDogSS1EIEFjdGlv?= =?utf-8?q?n=3A_draft-song-atr-large-resp-00=2Etxt?=
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: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:58:46 -0000

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 07:31:29PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
> we can, if we wish, continue to standardize one protocol, watch as the world
> deploys a different one, and still pretent that our effort was worthwhile.
> however, this would fit the technical definition of "insanity", and i urge
> that we avoid this course of action.

[…]

> we need a kernel option for various open source operating systems which
> causes all UDP to be fragmented at 512 octets of payload.

If working on a protocol that merely depends on certain middleboxes
eventually die is "insanity", what do we call it when people work on a
protocol that depends on UDP fragments working everywhere?

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com