Re: [DNSOP] opportunistic semi-authoritative caching (Re: DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale)

2017-09-07 Thread Paul Vixie
On Thursday, September 07, 2017 11:08:43 PM Joe Abley wrote: > >> Would you see the querying application informing you of intent via > >> > >> option code saying "If I'm unable to talk to you once TTL expires, I may > >> serve your last known good answer"? > > > > i don't think so. if it was

Re: [DNSOP] opportunistic semi-authoritative caching (Re: DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale)

2017-09-07 Thread Joe Abley
Apologies in advance for iPad MIME-crime. See below for crimes committed by workman rather than tools. > On Sep 7, 2017, at 21:37, Paul Vixie wrote: > > note, there's a proposal contained here. > > Jared Mauch wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:29:47PM -0700, Paul Vixie

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost

2017-09-07 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , Ted Lemon writes: > The discussion had covered the failure mode problem. There is substantial > agreement that it's better for a stub that issues a query for localhost to > fail than to succeed. You seem to

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost

2017-09-07 Thread Ted Lemon
The discussion had covered the failure mode problem. There is substantial agreement that it's better for a stub that issues a query for localhost to fail than to succeed. You seem to disagree. You haven't stated a reason for disagreeing—instead you've vigorously asserted that this is true. It's

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale

2017-09-07 Thread Mark Andrews
Part of the problem is that we have one TTL value for both freshness and don't use beyond. This is fixable. It is possible to specify two timer values. It does require adding signaling between recursive servers and authoritative servers, on zone transfers and update requests. You basically

[DNSOP] opportunistic semi-authoritative caching (Re: DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale)

2017-09-07 Thread Paul Vixie
note, there's a proposal contained here. Jared Mauch wrote: On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:29:47PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: if the draft being considered was clear on two points, i'd support adoption. ... Would you see the querying application informing you of intent via option code

Re: [DNSOP] Remarks about draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00

2017-09-07 Thread George Michaelson
It's not sensible to presume the action of an independent decision-making body. It's sensible to discuss it, but it should only inform our own process logic, not decide it categorically (I think) I might share your expectation of the outcome, but I would hesitate to reject a draft on a

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale

2017-09-07 Thread Jared Mauch
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:29:47PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > if the draft being considered was clear on two points, i'd support adoption. > > first, this feature is controversial, and there is not consensus favouring > its > implementation, merely its documentation. > > second, the initiator

Re: [DNSOP] Remarks about draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00

2017-09-07 Thread Suzanne Woolf
On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00 proposes to reserve .internal for > RFC1918-like domain names. There is clearly a strong demand for that. > (There is also a strong demand for happy sex, great food, excellent > wines

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale

2017-09-07 Thread Paul Vixie
there will be two replies here. one to wes, one to joe. On Thursday, September 07, 2017 10:36:50 AM Wes Hardaker wrote: > Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: > > I'm not enthousiastic. We should focus on making the DNS > > infrastructure more reliable, not on adding something to a

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale

2017-09-07 Thread Vladimír Čunát
On 09/07/2017 08:25 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > I also think if a standard specification can be obtained it ought to include > appropriate instrumentation to allow a response to indicate whether data is > stale or not. This seems to me just one example of a set of additional > components we might

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale

2017-09-07 Thread Paul Wouters
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Joe Abley wrote: I hear that. I don't have a strong opinion about whether serving stale data in general is desirable or abhorrent. However, the pragmatist in me says that people are already implementing things like this anyway, and a standard approach is better for all

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale

2017-09-07 Thread Joe Abley
On 7 Sep 2017, at 11:42, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:25:39PM -0400, > tjw ietf wrote > a message of 77 lines which said: > >> This starts a formal Call for Adoption for draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale >> >> The draft is

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale

2017-09-07 Thread Wes Hardaker
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: > I'm not enthousiastic. We should focus on making the DNS > infrastructure more reliable, not on adding something to a pile of > already fragile protocols. I don't believe we have any ideas how to make infrastructure more reliable in the face of

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale

2017-09-07 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:25:39PM -0400, tjw ietf wrote a message of 77 lines which said: > This starts a formal Call for Adoption for draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale > > The draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale/ I'm not

Re: [DNSOP] Remarks about draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00

2017-09-07 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 11:21:07AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote a message of 11 lines which said: > > This way, requests for anything.internal which leaked at the root > > would receive an insecure denial of existence (since there is no > > DS for .internal). Problem solved, no?

Re: [DNSOP] Remarks about draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00

2017-09-07 Thread Paul Wouters
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: This way, requests for anything.internal which leaked at the root would receive an insecure denial of existence (since there is no DS for .internal). Problem solved, no? Wouldn't that be a secure denial of existence? AFAIK, the root isn't using

Re: [DNSOP] Remarks about draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00

2017-09-07 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 04:32:39PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote a message of 57 lines which said: > draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00 proposes to reserve .internal for > RFC1918-like domain names. And I forgot to say that it could be a good idea to add a reference to

Re: [DNSOP] Remarks about draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00

2017-09-07 Thread Paul Hoffman
On 7 Sep 2017, at 7:32, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: The document clearly documents that it will not happen, since it requires an entire new process at ICANN. That is a non sequitur. ICANN regularly creates new processes at the request of its communities. --Paul Hoffman, not speaking for

[DNSOP] Remarks about draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00

2017-09-07 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00 proposes to reserve .internal for RFC1918-like domain names. There is clearly a strong demand for that. (There is also a strong demand for happy sex, great food, excellent wines and diamong rings, but let's ignore it for the moment). The document clearly documents

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost

2017-09-07 Thread Ted Lemon
On Sep 7, 2017, at 12:59 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > I shouldn't BE FORCED to hard code special LOCALHOST rules into DNS > tools. Lookups should "just work" like they did before the root > zone was signed. Because...? ___ DNSOP mailing