IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 25 August 2016 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 A8D4812D0C5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 05:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 3_zo4zpv4F2I for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 05:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]) (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 EE57712B010 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 05:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:53007) by ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1bctqv-000xgE-Kc (Exim 4.86_36-e07b163) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 25 Aug 2016 13:33:49 +0100
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 13:33:49 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAiTEH-qMAyiwqC9qvHnmXGSMQUiTkLtC-eK9jSYYqh-nEvvOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1608251331440.14525@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <665d8bd3-4229-eb98-1688-2460dcb943b6@gmail.com> <CAAiTEH--d3J7E0kib6WedXKeuQKYcofaVZra5vuh2qpt8RUSHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACfw2hh3OXw9Z7S8s3MSKwHMCEm=uUT03+tS0g1esMU0PULVqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAiTEH-Q7_UHQQUQfiw8sEp3MsF8OSkq+MhoLtwt18-DjUu7Hw@mail.gmail.com> <DAE8C592-A5A6-4EDA-A100-67B7DD900C36@vpnc.org> <CAAiTEH-qMAyiwqC9qvHnmXGSMQUiTkLtC-eK9jSYYqh-nEvvOw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/yaoh1nY6nYMw-dzSAN3ZmQzc5rg>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:33:54 -0000

Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com> wrote:
>
> Also take for example the transition from not having HTTP SRV to having
> it.  One of the arguments against from the browser developer community is
> the additional round trips.  One of those extra round trips is the need to
> request both the A/AAAA of the requested host and the _http._tcp.<apex> SRV
> record in separate queries, not knowing if the latter even exists.

A client can query for A AAAA and SRV concurrently. The extra latency is
due to the followup SRV target address queries and the higher rate of SRV
lookup failures.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
Northwest Fitzroy, Sole: Variable 3, becoming southwesterly 4 or 5. Slight or
moderate. Showers. Good.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email