Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query-05

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 18 January 2016 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 219C61B3BFB; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:10:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TVZlbLbsv_X4; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:10:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33FA11B3BFF; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:10:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id cy9so438211711pac.0; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:10:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lzd8prfZWX9XJiklpbaM5/zgxaQNx2kuPYh+fFtz0SM=; b=mIbDRUjgKEkGiTeg+3q4qAOyKylgBHth7o7MNgB5FQ1wBQIhK3bnScz5Jr5aiBx5kc m4BJraElVHZ0o9VSdUMiiDvuI0Fb2GLoEc4eHVfFpixKPUygLrqC01VCsiGW8cx74JaM KhhWAeOOjzoOfhD+W2Xuzt4aoTjYT6ZY7m+Q9KxE2ExoY5inXyS/Ol7skc9zOw68itSx DKw+cbV/XSpcFXwojlWg0G8cFIQK03kpaXLcbUdNv67TgcjVE+Wc69pV/A5E5gwZlUKD 9aQQj0xKK2crXCopaObbBFMDMCb59klNwktRsteYNT2A6bIHsFblFKvDe5dYotD0LAkz ks7A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lzd8prfZWX9XJiklpbaM5/zgxaQNx2kuPYh+fFtz0SM=; b=lu3etW+7UYc9cDEtkIKWZoqYciH9CxrXerEJuM0MK09mwVNn0q+F5I/CYjGoV6ztII PGm32/3RNMGf5IcNDeTeARYtBx9gJgG2rKD7pZPsYUyswKdgpnv4kVH5sEXo60w1A3AT Cy8uwlm8MUukUe4hAIuq4qc32FqpOFRYVGXMJF0mSKwr4c/CHxOZfK8S+gITGv0Uk82f 2noVPUjEZmbS41UJPxqrywlGun2fRwqiWZwzLFQewEmZKBRfV40tRm/lKbODACdgW3kc aHKPPY86oG2Rm6/zlE6g5AIk1RDz3T6GesHr10cfW7ai9fHGMdxKhehfly99guun2jy0 e1RQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmyK8x671hE7HFWWKZcqXB3DW2zFCvUuAa4EFnIJ4qi4z1kQqm9z+AVtGCbwsv/Tkhj2Kto0mxbLBhOFKrNFpLZo+XILw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id kg7mr38902089pab.105.1453144231755; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:10:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:63e1:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:63e1:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id y76sm35722510pfi.39.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:10:30 -0800 (PST)
To: Paul Wouters <>,, General Area Review Team <>,
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:10:31 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 19:10:35 -0000

Hi Paul,

I glanced at the -06 version and (together with your previous reply) it looks fine to me.


On 11/01/2016 17:32, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On 01/09/2016 11:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> (added dnsop to the CC: for some feedback)
> Thanks for the review Brian!
>> Summary: Almost ready
>> --------
>> Comment:
>> --------
>> As noted in the writeup, there was some WG controversy about this choice
>> of method, but since the proposed status is Experimental, that doesn't
>> seem to be an issue.
>> Minor Issues:
>> -------------
>> It might be better if the abstract didn't make a blunt claim about reduced
>> latency. "The reduction in queries potentially lowers the latency..." would
>> be safer.
> Added the word "potentially" as suggested.
>> Section 1, last paragraph:
>>> This EDNS0 extension is only intended to be sent by Forwarders to
>>> Recursive Resolvers.  It can (and should) be ignored by Authoritative
>>> Servers.
>> That "should" seems normative to me. In fact, it might even be a MUST.
> You are right. I've changed "can (and should)" to MUST.
>> The technical description of the option and how it's used seems fine
>> to me. Is a discussion of interaction with DNS64 (RFC6147) needed?
>> RFC6147 does not mention forwarders so I don't really understand
>> whether something needs to be said about this, but DNS64 does mess
>> up validation chains.
> That is a very good question!
> I don't think it would interfere with DNS64 any more than a regular query would. If the resolver doing the chain-query is the DNS64 resolver, then it will work
> fine, and only after it obtained the query-chain result will it rewrite the answer to an AAAA record if needed. If the client is a stub asking a chain-query,
> then it would have all the same DNS64 problems with the chain-query as with a regular query.
> The question is, should we write that up or not? I would lean towards not, as this is not something that affects chain-queries differently from regular queries.
>>> 7.  Implementation Status
>> In view of its final sentence, I doubt the value of this section.
>> Perhaps a short section on the goals and timeline of experiments
>> with this mechanism would be better.
> See
> The section will be removed before final publication. I will add a note to make this more explicit.
>>> 9.1.  Simple Query for
>>>   o  A web browser on a client machine asks the Forwarder running on
>>>      localhost to resolve the A record of "" by sending
>>>      a regular DNS UDP query on port 53 to
>> Why not use AAAA examples these days?
> I don't think this matters much, and there is still more operational experience with IPv4. If people think this is important, I have no problem changing it to AAAA.
> Paul