Subject: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses-01.txt

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:48:13 -0400

Hi all,

A number of people approached me at DNS-OARC and the RIPE DNS track in
Amsterdam asking what became of this draft, and could we please update
it.
Wes and I finally had some time to work on it in Buenos Aires, after
the ICANN meeting (actually, Wes did the work, I just mumbled and
brought him coffee...)

We are, as always, eager for feedback.
W

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:  <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:26 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses-01.txt
To: Wesley Hardaker <[email-masked]>, Warren Kumari
<[email-masked]>, Zhiwei Yan <[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Wes Hardaker and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses
Revision:       01
Title:          Returning multiple answers in DNS responses.
Document date:  2015-07-06
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          8
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses-01.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses/
Htmlized:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses-01
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses-01

Abstract:
   This document (re)introduces the ability to provide multiple answers
   in a DNS response.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:47:04 +0200

On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 03:48:13PM -0400,
 Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 68 lines which said:

> A number of people approached me at DNS-OARC and the RIPE DNS track
> in Amsterdam asking what became of this draft, and could we please
> update it.

It's not on the agenda on monday, isn't it?

> the ICANN meeting (actually, Wes did the work, I just mumbled and

I've re-read the discussion in January about version -00 and
apparently the questions that come to my mind are not shared by anyone
so here they are:

* the draft gives the impression that it authorizes a new
behaviour. But auth. servers have been sending extra data (IP address
of a MX target, for instance) for years.

* the draft says these extra data MUST (RFC2119-MUST) be validated
with DNSSEC. Does it mean that the current behaviour of sending extra
data for unsigned zones is now illegal?

* [followup off the previous question] should we instead say that
extra data should be sent (and should be accepted by clients) if and
only if (DNSSEC-validated _or_ in-bailiwick)? The current behaviors of
resolvers (accept extra data if in-bailiwick) does not seem to be
mentioned.

* the draft says "an authoritative name server operator can ensure
that the recursive server that the client is using has all the answers
in its cache". This is very dangerous because people may read it "we
now have a sure way to control what ends in the resolver's cache"
which is clearly not the case (the resolver may refuse some of the
extra data, the TTL of the extra data may mae it expire before the
"main" data, etc).

---

From: Tim WIcinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:54:53 +0200

> It's not on the agenda on monday, isn't it?

Warren has 10 minutes on the agenda on trust management, but he may 
choose to alter his talk.

tim

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>