IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Fri, 08 September 2017 07:56 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 CDDFA1241F3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 00:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 VsED1VUC6ENs for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 00:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (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 F3C04132D8C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 00:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id F1D292806C5; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 09:56:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id E34A62806C8; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 09:56:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (unknown [10.1.50.11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5FF2806C5; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 09:56:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD0960286A3; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 09:56:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C1345407E1; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 09:56:42 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 09:56:42 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170908075642.latitn2ac66ptdr5@nic.fr>
References: <CADyWQ+FHDHcmq-mr0BCHS5A8yvaOQmhTjve1_DmZN6vAc=BKyA@mail.gmail.com> <20170907154234.3z2zbju2sciiy7wr@nic.fr> <B1CDAB08-6A2A-4D76-B3FB-0B267382930A@hopcount.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <B1CDAB08-6A2A-4D76-B3FB-0B267382930A@hopcount.ca>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.1
X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-3-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2017.9.8.75116
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ztKuW95iIzYrlVcrlyIKknwSlm8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] 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 07:56:48 -0000

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 02:25:14PM -0400,
 Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote 
 a message of 35 lines which said:

> However, the pragmatist in me says that people are already
> implementing things like this anyway, and a standard approach is
> better for all concerned than a fragmented set of
> uncomfortably-different implementations, which will surely make
> troubleshooting problems harder.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. Either the opinion of the IETF
carries some weight with some actors, or it doesn't. In the first
case, we have to be careful of what we publish. In the second case, we
should close the shop immediately and go back playing video games,
since we are useless.

Also, in the specific case of draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale, there is
another point: it is a local, unilateral decision by the resolver, not
_directly_ affecting interoperability. People can do strange things on
their resolvers (they already do). We should set rules (see first
paragraph) but, on resolver behavior, we have to be modest. So, I
don't think "a standard approach" is _mandatory_ in that specific
case.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email