Re: [Doh] [Ext] Does the HTTP freshness lifetime need to match the TTL?

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Mon, 14 May 2018 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3BD51270A7 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2018 06:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 yyrMqpWXIrb6 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2018 06:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130]) (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 9FD12127078 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2018 06:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:59513) by ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.136]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1fIDK8-000pVD-dQ (Exim 4.89_2) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Mon, 14 May 2018 14:15:32 +0100
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 14:15:32 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
cc: Miek Gieben <miek@miek.nl>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <08CC2EF1-62EC-4D88-9C9D-1B7DE4ABE470@icann.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1805141406280.1809@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <15A1809C-2CA3-4A3B-A5B1-279227C30223@icann.org> <3E34581E-E2DC-48B7-A4AD-6B9FDA418179@icann.org> <31900328-8813-47D3-9F89-0B863CE673B3@mnot.net> <20180508094545.itl6cvpsekzrpxs4@miek.nl> <71E8902F-9297-45D2-80E0-064EF75D5AFE@icann.org> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1805141214560.1809@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <08CC2EF1-62EC-4D88-9C9D-1B7DE4ABE470@icann.org>
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/doh/GAIRgW47vJD45Ljj9qwD7ZQmRRc>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] Does the HTTP freshness lifetime need to match the TTL?
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 13:15:38 -0000

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:
>
> Ouch. (Note to HTTP folks: you're not the only ones with RFCs
> whose text does not always line up.)

I think the 4033 use of lower-case "may" is just a poor choice of
informative / descriptive vocab, and it isn't supposed to mean "MAY"
but in fact "can" or "might" (depending on context). There aren't any
normative requirements in 4033.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease, and aggression