Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

Puneet Sood wrote on 2019-03-25 08:07:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 12:37 PM Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> i object to serve-stale as proposed. my objection is fundamental and
>> goes to the semantics. no editorial change would resolve the problem.
>>
>> i would withdraw that objection if this draft incorporates section 2 of
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vixie-dnsext-resimprove-00, to wit:
> 
> I went back and read the discussion on this draft and I could not find
> consensus on adopting it at that time.

noone understood it. there was no reply, positive or negative, to my 
proposal that the WG adopt it. it dropped like a brick, in silence.

i believe that the issues are, now, nine years later, better understood.

> ... I do not think adding it to the
> serve-stale draft will make path for adoption for either the
> serve-stale draft or these recommendations easier.

understood. we disagree, but, i understand your position.

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-04 section 5
> (page 6, paragraph 2) talks about refreshing the delegation. Quote:
> 
> + When no authorities are able to be reached during a resolution
> +   attempt, the resolver SHOULD attempt to refresh the delegation and
> +   restart the iterative lookup process with the remaining time on the
> +   query resolution timer.  This resumption should be done only once
> +   during one resolution effort.
> 
> Maybe there are fewer, specific bits from your draft which would be
> appropriate in the serve-stale context? Would you be willing to
> discuss those?

yes, certainly. the text i quoted from the 2010 resimprove draft was the 
result of implementation experience, and touches on necessary details, 
which are at the moment missing from serve-stale. i'll be very happy to 
discuss these, though regrettably, i could only be in prague for sunday, 
and so i'll miss any side meetings or working group discussions this 
time. no disrespect is intended by my absence, i had other obligations.

-- 
P Vixie