IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-toorop-dnsop-ranking-dns-data-00.txt

Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> Mon, 18 March 2024 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <tale@dd.org>
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 89A6EC14F604 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TH0w4-mbTILz for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fluff.twonth.com (fluff.twonth.com [45.79.143.238]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3771FC14F616 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gro.dd.org (c-76-23-204-191.hsd1.vt.comcast.net [76.23.204.191]) by fluff.twonth.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 838EA1FD1E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:21:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by gro.dd.org (Postfix, from userid 102) id C7163188ECC; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:21:11 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <26103.38663.788139.326392@gro.dd.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:21:11 -0400
From: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
To: DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <56a471da-0745-4c5a-975a-c1cd1bf0a136@nlnetlabs.nl>
References: <57517c17-fa72-4180-a1ac-b74eac12ca88@NLnetLabs.nl> <09579567-A438-465D-9AC8-13A5756BD0ED@verisign.com> <56a471da-0745-4c5a-975a-c1cd1bf0a136@nlnetlabs.nl>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xUbRpnv6fLpOlQJD224TshLkuXs>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-toorop-dnsop-ranking-dns-data-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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 Mar 2024 01:21:18 -0000

Willem Toorop writes:
>     Should RFC 8767 stale data be ranked differently than fresh data?
>     Should EDNS Client Subnet play into ranking?
> 
> I like your thinking! Yes, fresh data should replace stale data in
> resolver caches

It's basically A- in your draft's hierarchy, I think, though the
current structure gives each letter grade only one type of data for it
and there's already an A-.  However, I am also wondering about the A-
as described, because it seems to suggest that an SOA in auth is less
trustworthy than an SOA in ans.  (Also, A and A- differ in
"authoritative reply" vs "authoritative answer" which are seemingly
describing the same thing.)

I get that you're trying to indicate that NS in auth is lower than
(correctly scoped) NS in ans, but it needs a little finagling, maybe
just to call out explicitly NS rather than generalized data.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email