Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 21 October 2019 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.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 200031200E0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Bs-x4GX2EE_E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32c.google.com (mail-ot1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEB9B1200B1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id 89so11749096oth.13 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=L0cPPWivp+/o51rKFcJzNo/xyLkhyaoIjc1yCE4IzF0=; b=eSx8QiWtYjLOuwTZ5C7BiM4no7hM3iP/z2ApJ+F8C/baHQ8CaFah9J+4+pAdoO0pvt FnPCCBaYOG8BTqfYlHf1V2jB/vBqUnzsSk3eUMrAAEOYTH0O0vmVzvhk0+O2xifPQQ4n 63BfiOtCp8DJnQ5jP5/D/wiEFOGfvFDjDu0zKg+tvJg1A1iCQ/h9cY1z1WsalXqmv98s Ivnf3YqgH/0h9Fyzn2y0iKZj3UhOi/yhfvWxSmoizPDFb2cxnN+Hidy1dVhm8DIQnWwE 1h3Hz8TmVlwz5tz54penVuRQaAy7gGJGPAqiThsC2u947jFUv1a8CihvwGW6MLi4sdhA at1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=L0cPPWivp+/o51rKFcJzNo/xyLkhyaoIjc1yCE4IzF0=; b=NuT5OCuw5N5JCYkp03bM++qD13FZG3Eje6b22SXyH/NYj0hyyIJXD9528Qk1RebWG8 5tBobDnKpaRNKo9k5HwexjQSrW1snJmi8LLSix+3Yc85a2nJR2ygyvDj75WQn1tJpZXA F0MzFTy/iIdkUVH2UJDIfs2DJeOZ3qVNgRlwXbYbYDU3VLJ7fC1mOsF6dB803q57hlcg ghcwrKL1eV/vNXoEXkJWslvCTCyvAK6qQDrnBaDWKh23oPb1sm2UCzH34gAmFcCP6TLp jd1/z/m/MSc7KbHGZB8kBy1zr39MhxsiJ31EtDhikT2CMHXU2y7Er0QmzwNdMCKZxD+R mhtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXoBEJf1lLn/4e3a+OD7ZJxHR5O5cqIAfcb/NooFmyTuwShZrNf FFhibw6xTC+3S5espvBDk7Bnc2Vwc0eiZw3uxhM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyZoW64eEMOn5+DE0354bRR924ACMLZ6IPRBOVwaanccG5m8oJSchi5FVN1htzrKcvVT4UvNqMUY3uKHb83LJY=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7653:: with SMTP id o19mr20625325otl.4.1571680439051; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADyWQ+FG7qzPnLkUH7mSBca=1NfXy6YduHD4UdmcfXFjD8xC6g@mail.gmail.com> <20190917075620.avbllsx6kwbiof2z@nic.fr> <yblh84xz4qg.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <1515406254.3112.1569654220499@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <ybl8sq54hoh.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <CADyWQ+F34gNLBdejDSicxZiweRJ367i-KdWtxhW6bx2jvZidNQ@mail.gmail.com> <bd6d286d-0bec-9b00-f819-231d7c0550db@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <bd6d286d-0bec-9b00-f819-231d7c0550db@nic.cz>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:53:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+G8X=3iWfZHBzDhouLzCpPm2Dbgdf3z3j74PkhWG9tHeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Cc: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000045295c05956f5e09"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/snhVjqmE8SSEhkLe0QW6oDKncn0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:54:03 -0000

Petr

Thanks for clarifying.  I was going through so many notes, and needed a
check.

1. Forwarding Semantics

Let me think on this one with the authors and chairs.

2. Stub Resolvers.

OK

3. Standards-Track vs Not

That's more than reasonable.

Tim


On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 1:48 PM Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz>; wrote:

> On 21. 10. 19 19:18, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> >
> > All
> >
> > The second WGLC period ended, and I needed a bit of time to go over all
> the comments and make sure they were all addressed, and that appears to be
> true.
> >
> > The only thing I see are some comments were raised after the -12
> version.  They've been addressed and can be updated on its way to IETF LC.
> If someone thinks
> > I am incorrect please speak up.
>
> I hate to rain on this parade, but I think the draft in its current form
> has two major problems:
>
> 1. Forwarding semantics is unclear, as was pointed out in
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/PAiQOsYfYQHrL7SeGWZn-jtJrTs
> and elsewhere during WGLC.
>
> Personally I think that omiting forwaring is a major mistake because the
> EDE code is most useful for diagnostics when forwarding is taking place!
>
>
> 2. Second problem is that it is uncelar if there is going to be a
> consumer: Did *anyone* from stub resolvers said a word about this draft? Is
> it useful as it is? Is there an experimental implementation in stub to
> consume this information?
> dnsop has history of tweaks which never get used by stubs, and this draft
> in particular is very expensive to implement in resolver code.
>
>
> Besides technical points above I oppose publishing this as standards-track
> document before it is fully implementated at least once. Previous
> implementation excercise at IETF 104 hackaton uncovered nasty corner cases
> and significantly influenced the draft (removal of rcode field etc.). It
> would be mistake to publish it without re-implementing it again before
> publication, we might find other significant problems.
>
> Thank you.
> Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC
>
> >
> > I'll confirm with the authors and finish the shepherd write up
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 5:07 PM Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net
> <mailto:wjhns1@hardakers.net>> wrote:
> >
> >     Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com <mailto:
> vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>>; writes:
> >
> >     > > Il 28 settembre 2019 01:41 Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net
> <mailto:wjhns1@hardakers.net>> ha scritto:
> >     > >
> >     > >   + Response: Those three codes were supplied in a previous
> comment
> >     > >     round and they are supposed to indicate policies being
> applied from
> >     > >     different sources.  Can you check the new text of them to
> see if
> >     > >     they are more understandable now?
> >     >
> >     > I think there was an editorial glitch, so now you have two errors
> #17
> >     > and no #18 - 3.19 should become #18 again.
> >
> >     Yep, fixed.  Thanks.
> >
> >     --
> >     Wes Hardaker
> >     USC/ISI
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DNSOP mailing list
> > DNSOP@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> >
>
>