Re: [DNSOP] raising the bar: requiring implementations

bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com> Wed, 28 March 2018 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <bert@hubertnet.nl>
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 8A54D127444 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 3uyhnVEzIlZH for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xs.powerdns.com (xs.powerdns.com [82.94.213.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 176311273B1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server.ds9a.nl (unknown [86.82.68.237]) by xs.powerdns.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61D7F9FB8C; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:24:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by server.ds9a.nl (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9E793AC546B; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:24:33 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:24:33 +0200
From: bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>
To: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org>
Cc: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180328151939.GA19504@jurassic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/qJ791roLYSs0Uw_pQiD8qm_f5Uw>
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 15:24:43 -0000

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