Subject: [DNSOP] WGLC for <draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-07.txt>

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:22:26 +0200

Dear WG,

the draft <draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-07.txt>, "DNS Referral Response Size
Issues" has been on our plate for quite a while.  After the Prague meeting,
four people have come forward with a review, all but one supported the
document with minor changes suggested, the fourth reviewer put more strength
in his concerns which were focused on particular paragraphs, not the
overall structure or direction of the draft. There was not much discussion
or contention w.r.t. the proposed text changes.
We have still three people left on our WGLC volunteers list, so to save
another editing cycle, this message starts a

	Working Group Last Call on <draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-07.txt>
	ending Wednesday, 2007-08-22 12:00 UTC

Please review the draft and the list thread starting 2007-05-07 and comment
on this list, preferrably including proposed text if you'd like to see
changes. Our charter lists this document as aiming at "Informational"
status.

We will have one more version of the draft to incorporate current and WGLC text
changes and NITS review, the -08 to go to our AD.

Thanks,
  Peter

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:27:22 -0400

Dear colleagues,

> changes. Our charter lists this document as aiming at "Informational"

For the record in this WGLC, I support the draft.  I sent a suggested
change to the list already, but in that message I noted that as far as
I was concerned, it was an editorial matter.  That message is at
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05592.html>.

Best regards,
A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
jabber: [email-masked]                 +1 416 646 3304 x4110

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:27:22 -0400

Dear colleagues,

Best regards,
A

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:11:05 -0400

>changes and NITS review, the -08 to go to our AD.

Review:
General:
Mostly OK, but some rough edges, it is not clear if this is informational
only document or if it is making some recommendations.
The document does not cite 2119, and does not use MUST/SHOULD in upper case
but some of the statements read like upper case is indented.

Section 1.2 (issue)
I think this section is out of date, most recursive resolvers support ENDS
by now. In a quick sample I did on my authoritative nameserver logs
I found almost 20000 different addresses that asked my server questions
during 12.25 days earlier this month.
over    86% of outside queries have ENDS0
over    79% of outside addresses sent at least one ENDS0 query
only    1% of outside addresses are inconsistent in ENDS0 use.

If the section is trying to address lack of support by stub-resolvers it
should say that explicitly.

Section 1: (Nit)
I think section 1 should point out that ENDS0 support has been recommended
for a long time, at least since RFC3226 (dec 2001)

Section 2.1.2 (nit)
s/512 octets/512 octets or advertised space in ENDS/

Section 2.2  (question)
It does not explicitly say that zone owners SHOULD/MUST run ENDS0
capable nameservers or recursive resolvers.
Is this intentional ?

Section 2.3.2 (nit)
I think this one belongs in section 2.2 as this is more appropriately
guidance to zone owner.

Section 5. (nit)
I think this should be appendix A.

         Olafur

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:11:05 -0400

Review:
General:

Section 1.2 (issue)

Section 1: (Nit)

Section 2.1.2 (nit)

Section 2.2  (question)

Section 2.3.2 (nit)

Section 5. (nit)

         Olafur

---

From: Kenji Rikitake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:46:30 +0900

For the record in this WGLC, I support the draft.
My comments (editorial matters only) at:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05558.html

// Kenji Rikitake

---

From: Kenji Rikitake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:46:30 +0900

// Kenji Rikitake

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:59:45 -0500

On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 07:22:26PM +0200,
 Peter Koch <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 30 lines which said:

> We will have one more version of the draft to incorporate current
> and WGLC text changes and NITS review, the -08 to go to our AD.

I did not see opinions about the issues I raised in
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05583.html. Do
people find them wrong or simply unimportant?

I support the draft, too, but not without some editing.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:59:45 -0500

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:45:15 -0500

Olafur,

> only    1% of outside addresses are inconsistent in ENDS0 use.

It's possible that the recursive resolvers which contact your  
authority servers are not representative of the global population.  
The content on your server is not as generally popular as on  
google.com's servers, or a root server, etc.

I think it would be instructive for someone to do a measurement  
exercise on a root server and identify what proportion of non-junk  
queries are made with EDNS0.

Joe

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:45:15 -0500

Olafur,

Joe

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:41:24 -0400

Joe,

>queries are made with EDNS0.

I do not think that there is no such thing as "representative authorative
DNS server".
Thus I think that it would be real good if different
people post their own observations on ENDS0 usage, and in particular
as people are making quite different usage of ENDS0.

As always doing stats is hard, but in this case it is important to
differentiate between recursive resolvers and stub resolvers,
as the uptake in ENDS0 is likely to be quite different.

         Olafur
         Olafur

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:41:24 -0400

Joe,

         Olafur
         Olafur

---

From: Akira Kato <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:53:33 +0900 (JST)

> queries are made with EDNS0.

I will try to analyze 48hour trace of M-Root taken in January this
year.

Couple of things:
- what is the definition of "non-junk queries"
- may we omit "junk queries" from EDNS analysis? depending on the definition,
  they are still legitimate DNS queries...

-- Akira Kato

---

From: Akira Kato <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:53:33 +0900 (JST)

Couple of things:

-- Akira Kato

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:13:23 -0500

> - what is the definition of "non-junk queries"

Off the top of my head, queries that are

   - well-formed
   - sourced from addresses that it is possible to reply to
   - are not NOTIFYs

etc.

>   they are still legitimate DNS queries...

I think what is interesting to me is to examine EDNS0 availability  
amongst the class of queries that can reasonably be answered. I don't  
much care whether queries that can't be answered support EDNS0.

But others may be interested in different things :-)

Joe

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:13:23 -0500

- well-formed

etc.

Joe

---

From: Sebastian Castro Avila <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:33:02 -0700

>   they are still legitimate DNS queries...

Using as reference the DSC presenter available at OARC and a time fram 
of one month in the past, I could see

F-root, between 40 and 45% of the queries announce EDNS0 capabilities.
Nominet (UK), around 50% +- 5%
E-root, around 40%
C-root, around 42%
.CL, around 60%

If anyone else on the list is using DSC, could try

Plots -> Query Attributes -> EDNS version
Time Scale -> 1 month
Y-Axis -> Percent of Queries

and check the  Yellow Area.

Regards
> -- Akira Kato

Sebastian Castro
NIC Chile / CAIDA

---

From: Sebastian Castro Avila <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:33:02 -0700

Regards

Sebastian Castro
NIC Chile / CAIDA

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:39:48 -0500

for apnic, in Japan, I get 60:40 edns0:no-edns0. by query load.

I also can confirm that the relative IP counts show almost all of the
non-edns0 hosts *never* do EDNS0. I just checked a 1 hour snapshot and
this was very clear.

219,727 discrete IPs used the server.

of these, 176,583 did EDNS0 and  45,148 did not do EDNS0.

43,144 had never been seen to do EDNS0. Only 2002 had done both.

19% of IPs just don't do EDNS0. Thats quite a large number

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:39:48 -0500

---

From: Jelte Jansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:38:07 +0200

> But others may be interested in different things :-)

How important is the actual size advertised in the EDNS0 field?

I remember a small but noticeable number of hosts having EDNS0 enabled
but set to 512 octets, when i did some stats research a while ago (data
has probably aged too much to say anything about it now, just thought
i'd mention it).

It's still better than no edns0 because it means the code is there and
it's probably a configuration thing, but still.

Jelte

---

From: Jelte Jansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:38:07 +0200

Jelte

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:57:08 +1000

> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20

	It's actually BIND 9 falling back to 512 bytes because the
	default EDNS query failed to get a response.

	!@#$^%$ firewalls.

	Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:57:08 +1000

!@#$^%$ firewalls.

	Mark

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:22:20 +0200

On 25 jul 2007, at 01.33, Sebastian Castro Avila wrote:

>>> exercise on a root server and identify what proportion of non- 
>>> junk  queries are made with EDNS0.
> Using as reference the DSC presenter available at OARC and a time  
> fram of one month in the past, I could see
>

We (as in Autonomica) see 50-70% over servers and services.

- kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:22:20 +0200

- kurtis -