[DNSOP] Ambiguous standards suck (was Re: draft-jabley-dnsop-ordered-answers)

Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> Fri, 06 November 2015 03:07 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F2E1B34A2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 19:07:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2zxXOpJ2xIBH for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 19:07:38 -0800 (PST)
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 EDE071B34A1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 19:07:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from s20010c4000003032c68e8ffffef564bd.v6.meeting.ietf94.jp ([2001:c40:0:3032: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 1ZuXND-00068v-Cd; Fri, 06 Nov 2015 03:07:32 +0000
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 12:07:22 +0900
From: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Message-ID: <20151106120722.35923479@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
In-Reply-To: <0C7A7D2B-02F8-46EE-A85D-27FB6BB483ED@hopcount.ca>
References: <1E5B644E-EA0D-4287-8AB5-1907EE06BE1C@hopcount.ca> <563B58FE.50905@bellis.me.uk> <m2mvusfnlq.wl-Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie> <0C7A7D2B-02F8-46EE-A85D-27FB6BB483ED@hopcount.ca>
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/ozj9fgEWrYXBj0hfwVD9TpPZ3M8>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: [DNSOP] Ambiguous standards suck (was Re: draft-jabley-dnsop-ordered-answers)
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: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 03:07:39 -0000


On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:42:45 -0500
"Joe Abley" <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:

> On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:54, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 13:26:22 +0000,
> > Ray Bellis wrote:  
> >>
> >> IMHO, if a clarification is needed, it's that a client that depends 
> >> on
> >> the order of the RRsets in an answer MUST NOT do so.  
> >
> > Wouldn't it be a simpler clarification to say that a client MUST NOT
> > depend on the order of the RRsets in an answer?  
> Sure, the solution could be any number of things.
> But what I heard clearly in the room (and what I saw on the mailing 
> list) is that there are multiple interpretations of the base spec, and 
> that there is deployed code that breaks as a result. This to me suggests 
> a need for clarification, regardless of what the clarification says.

Yes, I agree completely.

Clarifying may result in a large installed base of software that does
not implement the rules properly. But the alternative is a large
installed base of software that does not inter-operate. Sometimes. In
various confusing ways. Except when it does.

> Given that perspective, I remain confused as to why there was a strong 
> hum against providing clarification. It does seem possible that people 
> were humming against the specific proposal in the document, and not the 
> need for clarification in general.

I was in the room, and mildly surprised that there was a strong hum
against clarification.
> As I mentioned before I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, here. I just 
> want to make sure I understand what question people thought they were 
> being asked.

Good point. Perhaps people thought they were being asked to approve a
specific set of recommendations and did not like that? If that is the
case, fine, but lets pick a DIFFERENT set of recommendations then.

If people were opposed to adopting ANY straightforward clarification,
let me ask them to please reconsider. I beg of you all. Think of the