Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-04

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Tue, 15 December 2015 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D6F71A90F3 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:19:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=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 OSMR7diLZtwe for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:19:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x233.google.com (mail-pf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (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 A5E0E1A90F4 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:19:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id o64so7959228pfb.1 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:19:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=y/A5BP4Q/6viAFviQTXFAL7RHwzwuzwUfVwK5AdZHxw=; b=IgjIiI1BUEXr/un/EgLgfsxs39GLsdlUbEkjOOeKO70abo42T3BMneiDAphinYjeCf VX2SZuiJGBX1tmFJOtf4EsRmPsSTv+WiHss+JqSvwGK8mJAlmBNrhkZmX1aHCplIO1zq NmbqYdhhBe7UaHAKbe4uW/02oOKez399Heje8x1dhdTGXCvjoTXMntqX+4AYpHg2BUSc vvlJSSvHL6l/SW0GW1sxbzr59RUU82rdTHVrLY5gsyd72wR9nLe2iOnJDknZj/s9Wigw ZSgOULDcO0kuSmCDJkFMyLGvNVXVtGr8m2Jk3EuCnLgZ0A4xBQ0N4Otpp0CANa6VBTAA fHPQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=y/A5BP4Q/6viAFviQTXFAL7RHwzwuzwUfVwK5AdZHxw=; b=i+SqkcalTeh2q7zGOGba5w5CNacaTeLw3IA5osS887Lvy+INjBFrdeRV+G319J6Pto 2v+ypf0SyYlU+DRUSjIoB38qCl8phB3Jzy5ELJeI3X0B6b7sJCHP2FtUkq29zPSJbCuY SImoJuTpkcBYY62PL40ydyNt21GFQmI25RMsiGKgtM8/wM6+tteeQbTtiIbwjuklQg0i +27ymQNeAwyAtOziMwp3XIBaAKQORi1EgijgpHq7os3G9L4Qvewdh3MKPCzY3nsyzqJ6 5PQuEHAp70VarfqEgQJH/kFLPS51pT7sTb366iAgepaHm6K8kZ4R2bg7heQnxzhjN4/k Uhfg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnr4fDpxGtUzz4Thceq4vtYQeBR/rdZU/O61U8ejPwBeB6Fiyv4cNn57cAbYe3gt7voYVqSyOWMQ/t/Pw66foXfi0F81LjVyjSmn7cApv5MIh3sDDU=
X-Received: by 10.98.13.22 with SMTP id v22mr45798507pfi.125.1450199976293; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:19:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <46A1A261-E9F4-414D-AAD8-9C85A8B53283@vigilsec.com> <A886238F-FC46-47BD-AD86-B48D8BC42C47@vigilsec.com> <CAHw9_iJYtAC1mB2YixiYsYHXe+ioa94yk9Tru8TB0GduO-P2eQ@mail.gmail.com> <22128.17616.221208.762937@tale.kendall.corp.akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <22128.17616.221208.762937@tale.kendall.corp.akamai.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:19:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iLsm8BFNxVKJeoWSffKHG1ARAqgrZ3tFdnC1E9D1-gseg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David C Lawrence <tale@akamai.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114955d070d3a70526f2fe34
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/KC82P7-FnP86mDFLiChmoQMGjGE>
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet.all@ietf.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-04
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:19:39 -0000

Hi all,

I think it is much easier for reviewers to always be able to see the latest
version of a draft, and so I'm trying to integrate changes and then publish
new version often.

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM David C Lawrence <tale@akamai.com> wrote:

> > > In Section 7.1.1, can you add a sentence or reference to explain "lame
> > > delegation"?  I recognize that this type of error results when a name
> > > server is designated as the authoritative server for a domain name and
> > > that server does not have authoritative data.
> >
> > [ AUTHORS: This was a term that was left out of the terminology draft. Do
> > you have any suggestions for how we can reword this to remove the need
> for
> > the term? ]
>
> "... to distinguish the respone from one where the Authoritative
> Nameserver is not responsible for the name, which is a common
> convention for the REFUSED status."
>

Nice.
Integrated.


>
> > > Section 7.4 says: "Several other implementations, however, do not
> > > support being able to mix positive and negative answers, and thus
> > > interoperability is a problem."  Then, the next paragraph says that
> > > this topic will be revisited in a future specification.  Is there any
> > > advice that the authors can share as a step toward interoperability
> > > that would be useful for implementers until the future specification
> > > comes about?
> >
> > [ AUTHORS: Any text for here? ]
>
> The current situation is such that I think it is best just to say only
> something like, "It is recommended that no specific behaviour
> regarding negative answers be relied upon."
>
>
Done.

Posted -06

W


> Personally my proposal is going to be that negative answers be allowed
> to be scoped the same way that positive answers can be, but I don't
> expect it to be without some controversy and it wouldn't be right for
> me to insert by own bias into this document -- especially since Wilmer
> is one of the people who has said that he doesn't think ECS should be
> able to be used with negative answers.
>