Re: [Gen-art] [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 24 October 2019 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6D81200EC; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ZwnYEltENJUP; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x544.google.com (mail-pg1-x544.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::544]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 806C21200A4; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x544.google.com with SMTP id 23so173214pgk.3; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XkxrPIXoAHc/ReU8jP27UkYN3f0lNOlaV2wmaKPDm7c=; b=MNZWn2t6SIYnMlZ6ABbhu7/trZR6umNwOoNNCBPiNXn8NG1oSv+7HztY0sHdYTxZXG 9xMI8PAiGmRvwpyDrlCl81Z9/BWjH2LUMDdqKacopzQ/z+0clTuU5RhlDhmJusO5aG1c D3UnIYrtFpyWDwaZMVg4ra/RZ9XOOKtbTHgzzqq5lRALixJneVyPYB97NHz4JZZJb8kO siYG0yZSdyV+OK9ZlX6Rfvj3CeJSAGuO/Ofxq9Og/TqDqy0NWZeFY9jVtvFe/6v/pd53 n08Muys34Qhgf9YnsJKw6JirqKU3N7MSnIHKgO+sEB3ff4sDyTq3v4Ovs+C8AFDByNgq bt5g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XkxrPIXoAHc/ReU8jP27UkYN3f0lNOlaV2wmaKPDm7c=; b=eheY/GacETrZ4FoQ6ZyogWgOSKmYToibxcQMIdTmzw8tIbp/pM2W0MGj71X8ebnUvs 5yw3jN4UJ+pKn4vwh624o7sHf/1aH/p9lnF5dksJZI4AS5TNsMsTTFCAiDdNUI6XAT5p k7YPxYaB0Y5WuNdcvLH+RQruGWMWLpnm5FKAOxQa1OuViXWVLkBv9AGbv3SSBHXoBL8o Y7/IwxmVyU3TC5VlM/3gC6R4TU7sN7H6v03cO/SL2AQIHnVhDez2OIJmscq0b60yRmIs q4DGAMb/U/pUlBMpSPUBInbwEyMk/dy84uwwm+vsV+9y3GrcYNVewubbi3/jiGN00Rcd Ysiw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWzDJfV165qd/Y4BVlMFm1bPhL5LoH77w/h8rjHZ3j4vHLdZ0bY XNG4YINOgDZKr54ZuOTx5Nv5of1/
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzhNhl5fTkkMFBc1QCzUYaHprsaAEgiJ+EEg3sNmUGBNVaS5m504CIfbA/HnfJzeA3QJ4r2EQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:1b8f:: with SMTP id b137mr327955pfb.208.1571955825198; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (98.145.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.145.98]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h8sm29833690pfo.64.2019.10.24.15.23.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
To: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>, dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org
References: <157194421575.11362.4964821589228085335@ietfa.amsl.com> <23985.64786.138127.971733@gro.dd.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ec55975c-3250-dc87-5cb8-c82164368d36@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:23:42 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <23985.64786.138127.971733@gro.dd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/-rX9W3KwUkZ75tJdB9J17kwgRIA>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 22:23:49 -0000

Hi Dave,

Thanks. I think that covers it. I still suspect that the original reason
was concern about int versus uint confusion, but the new text is fine.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 25-Oct-19 08:35, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> internet-drafts@ietf.org writes:
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09
> 
> This revision addressed the one remaining outstanding issue that Brian
> Carpenter raised in the Gen-ART Last Call Review.  The following text
> was added to explain why a TTL with the high-order bit set is now
> handles as a large positive number (then capped down) rather than a
> negative number (and treated as zero).
> 
>     As for the change to treat a TTL with the high-order bit set as
>     positive and then clamping it, as opposed to [RFC2181] treating it as
>     zero, the rationale here is basically one of engineering simplicity
>     versus an inconsequential operational history.  Negative TTLs had no
>     rational intentional meaning that wouldn't have been satisfied by just
>     sending 0 instead, and similarly there was realistically no practical
>     purpose for sending TTLs of 2^25 seconds (1 year) or more.  There's
>     also no record of TTLs in the wild having the most significant bit set
>     in DNS-OARC's "Day in the Life" samples.  With no apparent reason for
>     operators to use them intentionally, that leaves either errors or
>     non-standard experiments as explanations as to why such TTLs might be
>     encountered, with neither providing an obviously compelling reason as
>     to why having the leading bit set should be treated differently from
>     having any of the next eleven bits set and then capped per Section 4.
> 
> I also removed the phrasing about 2181's handling of this issue as a
> "curious suggestion".  I recognize it could have an unintended
> negative connotation against the original authors, though when I wrote
> the sentence originally I meant it only with its neutral denotation.
> It was curious to me only because no rationale was provided as to why
> that particular choice had been made, despite the current assertion
> that it was obvious as to why.
> 
>