[DNSOP] 答复: DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale

Davey Song(宋林健) <ljsong@biigroup.cn> Fri, 08 September 2017 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ljsong@biigroup.cn>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 681C9132ECC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 02:16:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.133
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, INVALID_MSGID=0.568, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qtRuHcWyJ72O for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 02:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpbg65.qq.com (smtpbg65.qq.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7686132EC9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 02:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-QQ-mid: bizesmtp14t1504862160tf9ilmse
Received: from sljpc (unknown []) by esmtp4.qq.com (ESMTP) with id ; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:15:57 +0800 (CST)
X-QQ-SSF: 00400000004000F0FxF0000A0000000
X-QQ-FEAT: socDd1yRFi76+kEeYAHL7rOsA/D9KIU4hw8uZImomOYDEHfzdoQAX10+8/yst ZxTxZVIozgdBNg3LiXwc7KZvaIPAxuOYoX46l8n9Pm1iqkWbT5EGQROfbvyH32ScYDOcaeW wxZU+nEsmLAwALfb9+TfJJP4EflcZj6qTN5cn1IO6TptZJlQ7gcxWhS+WWNGE4dC0hCoHT+ 5QQ3+fWT9Ikg3d9ZXPbNfsWNzhbhVN/mLFp7+lKpkKkHcNX9O94702wyddX9vsOwUs5kQO0 1mEUHNgVaTn2oZkN/t5zPa9mCeKNP0AMhGPyVEpwOvBeR2aTJ276T3mYpX/c71UlPOYg==
X-QQ-GoodBg: 2
From: "Davey Song(宋林健)" <ljsong@biigroup.cn>
To: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer' <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, 'tjw ietf' <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: 'dnsop' <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <CADyWQ+FHDHcmq-mr0BCHS5A8yvaOQmhTjve1_DmZN6vAc=BKyA@mail.gmail.com> <20170907154234.3z2zbju2sciiy7wr@nic.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20170907154234.3z2zbju2sciiy7wr@nic.fr>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:15:56 +0800
Message-ID: <013a01d32883$163fc0a0$42bf41e0$@cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdMn7/OD25BgqqnjSw6pJzFhe3TezgAklTBA
Content-Language: zh-cn
Feedback-ID: bizesmtp:biigroup.cn:qybgforeign:qybgforeign4
X-QQ-Bgrelay: 1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xVVSDMr6aKrOgo-nqzswvIRjr0I>
Subject: [DNSOP] 答复: DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 09:16:13 -0000

I just notice it asks for "Standards Track" document. If it aims to
introduce a special use of resolver to achieve some features for their
users' benefit, I think informational document may be more appropriate ? I
guess, like what RFC7706 does. 


> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Stephane Bortzmeyer
> 发送时间: 2017年9月7日 23:43
> 收件人: tjw ietf
> 抄送: dnsop
> 主题: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:25:39PM -0400,  tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote  a message of 77 lines which said:
> > This starts a formal Call for Adoption for
> > draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale
> >
> > The draft is available here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale/
> I'm not enthousiastic. We should focus on making the DNS infrastructure
> reliable, not on adding something to a pile of already fragile protocols.
> There is also an opportunity that it masks failures and prevents people
> properly assigning blame: "example.com works if I use Something Public DNS
> but not if I use my ISP's resolver, therefore my ISP is broken".
> Also, the current draft does not make crystal-clear that stale data MUST
> be served unless no authoritative name server replies.
> If it is adopted, I think that requesting some way to convey the fact it
is stale to
> the client (Davey Song's message) is necessary.
> Regarding the draft, I'm surprised by the paragraph starting with "Paul
> has suggested", paragraph which seems to completely ignore RFC 8020.
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop