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

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. 

Davey

> -----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
more
> reliable, not on adding something to a pile of already fragile protocols.
> 
> There is also an opportunity that it masks failures and prevents people
from
> 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
NOT
> 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
Vixie
> has suggested", paragraph which seems to completely ignore RFC 8020.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop