Re: [DNSOP] Consensus suggestion for EDE and the TC bit

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Wed, 04 December 2019 02:33 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 ABC53120059 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 18:33:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 i5qVsX3rW3XO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 18:33:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3033B12001A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 18:33:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.58] (cpc158605-hari23-2-0-cust247.20-2.cable.virginm.net [86.14.252.248]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85E65B0592; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 02:33:15 +0000 (UTC)
To: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>
Cc: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>, dnsop@ietf.org
References: <yblzhgpwwit.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <07cdee93-eb69-9a67-65d8-ea85e82a8761@nthpermutation.com> <A2BE987F-09ED-4992-977C-FB3A702B8FE5@fl1ger.de>
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <67a385df-c026-41f6-3a99-aa24e5587aa1@redbarn.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 18:33:12 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A2BE987F-09ED-4992-977C-FB3A702B8FE5@fl1ger.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rCjbOWTCXB6vNPzIVxa2GPpr1S8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Consensus suggestion for EDE and the TC bit
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: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 02:33:21 -0000


Ralf Weber wrote on 2019-12-03 14:21:
> On 3 Dec 2019, at 3:15, Michael StJohns wrote:
...
>>
>> The way I read this is that setting the bit simply because you 
>> couldn't include diagnostic info is a no-no.   Let's not do it.
> I disagree. The EDNS0 OPT RRSet is needed and thus if can not be fitted 
> entirely a TC bit has to be set. Also 2181 was before EDNS0 so IMHO it 
> doesn’t apply here anyway. EDE is all is new stuff we have to decide 
> over what do with it now and not some ancient RFC. And a lot of people 
> (including me) have said that they, because of the rare cases this 
> appears, see TC as the right solution as it is simple and backwards 
> compatible. EDE already is complex we should not increase it complexity 
> for a rare corner case.

i think EDNS0 is no longer optional. if you can't speak it because of 
response truncation problems, you set TC=1.

so, i am +1 to ralf's text above.

-- 
P Vixie