Subject: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-07.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 07:51:49 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.

        Title           : Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming Queries
        Authors         : Peter Koch
                          Matt Larson
                          Paul Hoffman
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-07.txt
	Pages           : 6
	Date            : 2016-03-19

Abstract:
   This document describes the queries that a DNS resolver should emit
   to initialize its cache.  The result is that the resolver gets both a
   current NS RRSet for the root zone and the necessary address
   information for reaching the root servers.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-07

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.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 10:57:26 -0400

> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-07.txt

Thank you to the WG for the editorial changes in this draft. There are 
still a few outstanding issues:

The WG discussed the sentence:
    The RD bit MAY be set to 0 or 1, although the meaning of it being 
set to 1 is
    undefined for priming queries.
However, there were widely-varying opinions and no consensus about 
change.

With respect to the DO bit, there was a suggestion:
   Resolvers SHOULD send DO, and should try validate (if it gets signed 
responses).
   This is pointless at the moment, but if / when we end up with signed 
root-servers.net
   (or foo.bar) it would be nice if the right things were already being 
done.
There was some agreement on this, but then it was pointed out that the 
response might be
larger than the typical size set in EDNS(0) requests. And then the 
discussion got lost.

It would be grand to resolve these (and any other issues folks have) on 
the list before the Buenos Aires meeting so that the face-to-face 
discussion is more valuable.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Bob Harold <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:17:35 -0400

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>    The RD bit MAY be set to 0 or 1, although the meaning of it being set
> to 1 is
> However, there were widely-varying opinions and no consensus about change.
>
Minor question:
"if the recursive resolver did not announce a reassembly size larger than
512 octets"

Does that mean 513 is enough?   I would prefer wording like "at least xxx"
rather that "larger than xxx"