The call for acceptance for draft-song-atr-large-resp is closed, and it
is clear that there is insufficient support to adopt the concept as a
DNSOP WG document.
There was some concern about the increased number of packages involved
in a legitimate exchange (half of them being ICMP messages,
At Fri, 8 Feb 2019 00:39:27 +0530,
Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> > The draft doubles the number of packets involved in a legitimate
> > exchange; it more than doubles the number of packets involved in a
> > spoofed exchange. About half of these packets are ICMP
> > packets. Without the draft, ICMP
Peter van Dijk wrote on 2019-02-07 06:41:
...
I think it’s important to repeat that not only do I oppose adoption -
any implementation, no matter the status of the document, will be
*actively harmful to the DNS at large*. Please do not implement this.
to be fair, the harm in terms of icmp
On 6 Feb 2019, at 9:08, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
Considering that the method is implementable without any changes at a
resolver, and that it doesn't require compatible behavior among DNS
implementations ("protocol" or best practice), I suppose it does not
matter if this draft is adopted or not
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 06:55:16PM +0100, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for
> adoption by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your
> view.
Considering that the method is implementable without any changes at a
resolver, and that
At Fri, 18 Jan 2019 18:55:16 +0100,
Benno Overeinder wrote:
> We discussed this work (draft -01) in Montreal, and different opinions
wrt. adoption were expressed. In the past months, the authors pushed a
draft version -02 that addressed and resolved some of these comments.
>
> This starts a
Paul Vixie wrote:
> likewise. we should not avoid fragmentation in this particular way. that is,
> we can use persistent TCP, or we can avoid sending large messages by shaping
> their contents better (smaller signatures, less additional data).
Like this?
Peter van Dijk wrote on 2019-01-21 11:22:
Hello,
On 18 Jan 2019, at 18:55, Benno Overeinder wrote:
...
This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-song-atr-large-resp
I oppose adoption. ...
likewise. we should not avoid fragmentation in this particular way. that
is, we can use persistent
On 21-01-19 11:22, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> I oppose adoption. Any implementation of this draft will actively hurt the
> DNS and the Internet, and thus publication as an RFC will actively hurt the
> DNS and the Internet.
I agree with Peter. This workaround does more harm than good and should
+1. I we should not adopt this draft for all the reasons all ready presented in
the thread and also the draft text regarding "moving all DNS over TCP”.
regards
John
On 21 Jan 2019, at 10:41, Ralf Weber wrote:
> Moin!
>
> On 21 Jan 2019, at 11:26, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>>> On 21 Jan 2019, at
On 21. 01. 19 11:34, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>
>> On 21 Jan 2019, at 10:26, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>>
>> We can’t be removing EDNS workarounds and at the same time slap another
>> workaround into the DNS.
>
> +1
>
> I think the WG should drop this draft.
+1, I also oppose adoption of this draft.
Moin!
On 21 Jan 2019, at 11:26, Ondřej Surý wrote:
On 21 Jan 2019, at 11:22, Peter van Dijk
wrote:
Please do not adopt.
+1 to everything that Peter said. I’ve been opposing ATR draft from
the very beginning. We can’t be removing EDNS workarounds and at
the same time slap another
> On 21 Jan 2019, at 10:26, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
> We can’t be removing EDNS workarounds and at the same time slap another
> workaround into the DNS.
+1
I think the WG should drop this draft.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
> On 21 Jan 2019, at 11:22, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Hello,
>
> On 18 Jan 2019, at 18:55, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>
>> We discussed this work (draft -01) in Montreal, and different opinions wrt.
>> adoption were expressed. In the past months, the authors pushed a draft
Hello,
On 18 Jan 2019, at 18:55, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> We discussed this work (draft -01) in Montreal, and different opinions wrt.
> adoption were expressed. In the past months, the authors pushed a draft
> version -02 that addressed and resolved some of these comments.
>
> This starts a
15 matches
Mail list logo
