IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Thu, 21 November 2019 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
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 EE70512086C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:49:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 cyHIt8mJvzYT for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:49:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A3CA12083E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:49:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (dhcp-9208.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.146.8]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 452512DAD8; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:49:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
Cc: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <yblzhgpwwit.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <CAHbrMsBR6LZ880RXPDW2L+c_gcC6Tpg+L_c78OZvxJs4Gc4pUQ@mail.gmail.com> <yblv9rdwrm3.fsf@wu.hardakers.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:49:39 -0800
In-Reply-To: <yblv9rdwrm3.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> (Wes Hardaker's message of "Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:39:16 -0800")
Message-ID: <yblr221wr4s.fsf@wu.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/urg7cFFuUdPgi73WRGfUEIBbQpQ>
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:49:43 -0000

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> writes:

> > I think our simplest and most appealing option would be to treat EDE
> > exactly like any existing EDNS Option (i.e. set the TC bit).
> 
> For the record, I'm just fine with this.  People that *want* a separate
> signal should speak up please and voice their reasons why having just
> the TC bit is unacceptable too.
> 
> We need to come to a decision about this, and that will require everyone
> with an opinion to chime in.

Actually, I forgot that one of the primary reasons for separating it was
that EDE can go forward and the need for TC/DP bits can be debated
longer if need be.

So...  anyone that thinks something like the DP bit is needed *and*
should be tied to EDE should speak up.  Please.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email