Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

please help me get over the feeling that this argument is founded on the same logic as that used by folks who "know" I might want, no NEED that extra bit of email in my inbox. As I read it, it sounds like DNS Server Spam being "PUSHED" to the Resolver who may or may not want the data. Please

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

Status Quo is good for ipv4 to ipv6 migration. Totally agree with william on PUSH/PULL. 1. Hotest internet service's RDATA always exists in recursive dns cache, PUSH is not speed up much except hit-miss. ( recursive -> authority ) 2. clients known what they want, PULL & prefething is Ockham's

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:45 PM, 神明達哉 wrote: > At Thu, 4 Aug 2016 20:03:35 -0400, > Tim Wicinski wrote: > > > This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver- > priming > > > > Current versions of the draft is available here: > >

Re: [DNSOP] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-03

appolgies for setting this aside for a month. IETF intervened, I don't plan to advance this until the question is addressed in any event. On 7/8/16 1:32 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

On 16 August 2016 at 08:57, Tim Wicinski wrote: > All, > > > In Berlin we had two presentations on different methods of returning > multiple responses: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses/ > >

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > All, > > > In Berlin we had two presentations on different methods of returning > multiple responses: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses/ > >

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

Hello, > From: Tim Wicinski > In Berlin we had two presentations on different methods of returning > multiple responses: > All of these documents are attempting to solve a larger problem in > different ways. > The end result is "Return Associated Answer" to the client. > >

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

from an attacker POV, I would strongly support PUSH, as it would increase DDoS effectiveness. The performance enhancement seems to be based on some presumptions about servers retaining residual knowledge of the resolver behaviours. PULL minimizes the attack surface. wrt cache coherence and delay,

Re: [DNSOP] Term for "signing software"? Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-02.txt

i look at much of the current work product and it reminds me of the term "guilding the lily"... my view of the DNS landscape is a series of concentric circles, the center is DNS protocol fundamentals, the namespace and wire formats. outside that are things like namespace representation, which