Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 18 May 2020 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 346633A0AC9; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.195
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 Tb1zP5MP09hq; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 5764A3A0AB9; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49Qnqj4cTZzDjV; Mon, 18 May 2020 20:39:45 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1589827185; bh=XsxbqZM/zNlqZhtSOj6iEjMcOCvofN1iqiHgDhol9gQ=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=dVQk92Y9VJY8ESabVqV7iVEgTGa5yec/0T5LALrAtzKoueT6TzUyobyxZU+hn2czV NMrLhT+Fkz61UGHoyEC/l9uXOs+K2jv7p5NQzUctCnU9YNqbccV/H+GlROppwbuAUt uL2qSoqjXPoVWmk+zAQ9aVLX25VjnTRdYnQYEnbg=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bj5YZXSMbvlV; Mon, 18 May 2020 20:39:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 18 May 2020 20:39:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [193.111.228.74] (unknown [193.111.228.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7A5B6020D59; Mon, 18 May 2020 14:39:42 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3C3A3A4B-97DE-4C6C-BFE9-A3952FA58C2C
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 14:39:41 -0400
Message-Id: <F4F41481-C2A7-4FDF-AF76-65C36AB23976@nohats.ca>
References: <CAH1iCirMsU4gsoYPVan-bq856iK_GTAgSqTqj9MJdgzyA01XPA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, dnsop-chairs <dnsop-chairs@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAH1iCirMsU4gsoYPVan-bq856iK_GTAgSqTqj9MJdgzyA01XPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17E262)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/x0sExI2p-kfoJIei7vSocyX8s18>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional
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, 18 May 2020 18:39:51 -0000

In favour of adoption but like to see text from both AUTH and recursive behaviour.

Not convinced the situation should be this black and white - eg perhaps partial glue would be enough not to require TC=1 or behaviour for resolvers could be a little more advanced to try with partial before going to TCP.

If my request seem stupid, the draft needs clarification for stupid people like me :)


Paul

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 18, 2020, at 14:30, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:50 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run
>> regular call for adoptions over next few months.  
>> We are looking for *explicit* support for adoption.
>> 
>> 
>> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional
>> 
>> The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional/
>> 
>> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
>> by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
>> 
>> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
>> 
> 
> I support adoption by the WG, believe it is suitable, and am willing to review and contribute text.
> 
> Brian
> 
>  
>> This call for adoption ends: 1 June 2020
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> tim wicinski
>> DNSOP co-chair
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop