Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-00.txt

Dave Lawrence <> Tue, 14 November 2017 09:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A6112008A for <>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:10:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
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_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dJagxnB1k9U1 for <>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:10:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C2AB124205 for <>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:10:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 102) id D23EF3F43D; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:10:32 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:10:32 -0500
From: Dave Lawrence <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:10:36 -0000

Dave Lawrence writes:
> The main changes, based on previous feedback, are:
> * Clarifying what the action is for Standards Track;
> * Describing the algorithm previously proposed (and still included) as
>   one example way of achieving the goals; and,
> * Adding a rough proposal for an EDNS option that could be used for
>   explicit signalling.
> That last item will be fleshed out more if there's demonstrated
> interest from implementers in having such a thing.

At the moment I'll observe there are no open issues against the draft,
which is my comically passive-aggressive way of pointing out that it
is obviously perfect and so let's just move it along to Last Call.

This is now your opportunity to correspondingly observe that someone
is wrong on the Internet and to respond appropriately.  At the very
least, we'd like to know whether there is sufficient support for
pursuing the EDNS option or just to take it back out (and leave the
rest of the obviously perfect document as-is).

Thanks in advance for any feedback,