Re: last call discussion status on draft-iab-2870bis

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 05 March 2015 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03A61B2AB6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:47:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable
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 19cN3kopk6VK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:47:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E0B1B2AB1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:47:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388992CC5D; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:47:35 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zJzyZsifEnSG; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:47:34 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B351D2CC4D; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:47:34 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C026CAB7-50DF-4FAB-896F-C3F89B93AE37"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: last call discussion status on draft-iab-2870bis
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <20150305044122.4185F2AEEC2D@rock.dv.isc.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:47:39 +0200
Message-Id: <EC564286-9A5E-4702-A8ED-B2C8E404E68A@piuha.net>
References: <20140520204238.21772.64347.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <500031A0-DF45-409E-AACB-F79C32032E38@viagenie.ca> <4B545BEB-EA0E-4BA8-A45E-15AF12CDB1EC@piuha.net> <20150305044122.4185F2AEEC2D@rock.dv.isc.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mBlUs2zwuD_G2D1kyHiIwN8QP-Y>
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.org>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:47:38 -0000

>> 3) Mark Andrews' suggestion of further requirements regarding EDNS0 has
>> not been discussed, but I would note that at this stage we should not add
>> major requirements without substantial community portion indicating that
>> this is needed. I'm not hearing it.
> 
> I suspect this is because the root servers actually correctly
> implement EDNS.  If a server was changed to a implementation that
> failed to correctly implement EDNS that would change.

Perhaps. What do others think?

Jari