Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query-05
Paul Wouters <pwouters@redhat.com> Mon, 11 January 2016 04:32 UTC
Return-Path: <pwouters@redhat.com>
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 9E6891A70E2; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:32:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 VtzUca6mVgYK; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:32:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF5961A7032; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:32:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9581AB5C23; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 04:32:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from thinkpad.nohats.ca (vpn-63-135.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.63.135]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u0B4WCtq014556; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:32:13 -0500
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query.all@ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, dnsop@ietf.org
References: <5691DC53.8010500@gmail.com>
From: Paul Wouters <pwouters@redhat.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <5693304C.9040409@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:32:12 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5691DC53.8010500@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.23
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/w78JE8i3XLi2588pUMuhMOHxtyo>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query-05
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: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 04:32:15 -0000
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 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6982 The section will be removed before final publication. I will add a note to make this more explicit. >> 9.1. Simple Query for example.com >> >> o A web browser on a client machine asks the Forwarder running on >> localhost to resolve the A record of "www.example.com." by sending >> a regular DNS UDP query on port 53 to 127.0.0.1. > > 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
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Paul Wouters
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Jari Arkko