On Jul 2, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Edward Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
> First, I don't see why this draft exists in the IETF. How does this impact > interoperability? There are many drafts and RFCs produced by the IETF that do not "impact interoperability". This document describes an operational issue. That seems kind of appropriate for the DNSOP WG, yes? > Further, this draft is hinting at a mixed signal. In an era where operators > are rushing to deploy RRL because of what appears on the surface to be overly > aggressive clients, the document is telling cache servers that they ought to > be (slightly) overly aggressive. I get that this is *slightly* overly > aggressive and that the use here is "benign" (chuckle if you want), but, > well, 131 is still over the limit (of 130 kph). And intent is immaterial > when I see a query thrown my way. RRL is being deployed because of botnets, which are not clients at all: they simply use the DNS protocol. The draft is not for things that are overly aggressive at all. > Why is this important? I looked at one popular name, just to pick one for > the sake of an email message (not a whitepaper). The TTL on an A record is > 300 and my dig reported it took 19ms to get a response from an authoritative > server. I.e., the domain wants to change the A frequently but also has a > fast authoritative infrastructure. 19ms is less than one-half of one percent > of one percent of 300, if I plug that into an "efficiency" I'm dividing: > > 300 / 300.019 = 99.993% > > I don't see the real-world benefit of this. Fine: you don't need implement it. There are enterprise environments where the round-trip times are more significant to them than they seem to you in your enterprise environment. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
