Re: [DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 05 December 2019 00:39 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 0E45C12008A; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 16:39:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ASmFvViNMI1q; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 16:39:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6084E120018; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 16:39:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id xB50dQBh017744 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Dec 2019 19:39:28 -0500
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 16:39:26 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale@ietf.org, suzworldwide@gmail.com, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20191205003926.GB13890@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <157541704332.4708.13617952601376840902.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <157541704332.4708.13617952601376840902.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/q5fp8GOfnWN2dQ_DLXY7YMH4dX0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 00:39:34 -0000

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 03:50:43PM -0800, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> * I agree with Mirja, Section 8 is more informative than what is alluded to the
> paragraph starting with “Several recursive resolvers …” in Section 3, and IMO
> is worth keeping.  I struck me as odd to call out the operation practice of a
> particular vendor (Akamai).  We might want to check if this reference is ok –
> Ben?

To some extent the operational practices of operators equate to
implementation status, for those that develop/run their own
implementations.  So I wasn't particularly struck by the text in Section 8
-- I was more struck by the text in Section 3 that left the "some way"
rather vague, and had opened an internal discussion about it (as-yet
unresolved).  But Adam's proposal to drop the vendor name entirely is
likely to be satisfactory.

-Ben