IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 09 November 2015 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4321E1B3134 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:23:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=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 uVOUtuZnw3mk for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97DDE1B30FF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.32.60.128] (50-1-98-110.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id tA9GMlLE040907 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Nov 2015 09:22:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-110.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.110] claimed to be [10.32.60.128]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 08:22:46 -0800
Message-ID: <A8A3F4DA-EE53-4BA4-9EF7-6DCB6120350B@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1511091301260.25050@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <5635CF1A.4030803@gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1511091301260.25050@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.2r5141)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/vrP0PXIcp1e6lUuJ7BnOT9LsbGM>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 09 Nov 2015 16:23:00 -0000

On 9 Nov 2015, at 5:02, Tony Finch wrote:

> Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The authors have updated their document to address all outstanding
>> issues, and we feel the document is ready for Working Group Last 
>> Call.
>
> The rationale for this document is still completely wrong. It does not
> provide any reduction in latency compared to the existing DNS 
> protocol.

Is that really true? That is, I assume that you mean the latency with 
this proposal is due to the recursive still having to go fetch all the 
pieces. However, if the recursive already has some or all of the answers 
in its cache, this proposal reduces the latency compared to the stub 
asking for each piece. Or, I might be misunderstanding why you think 
there is no latency reduction.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email