Subject: [dnsop] regarding the WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-07 and QTYPE=*

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:51:42 -0700

Folks,

	As you likely saw, the WGLC for this document ended on 12
	May 2004 and I have sent it along to the IESG. however, I
	would like to get the "sense of the room" on the
	"QTYPE=*" issue. If necessary, we can pull it back for
	revision. Please indicate your position (yes/no). 

	Thanks,

	Dave

.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 20:05:34 +0300 (EEST)

> 	revision. Please indicate your position (yes/no). 

FWIW, if it helps, below is the htmlwdiff of what I've "in the 
pipeline":

http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/temp/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-08pre-diff.html
(.txt is in the same dir)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

.

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:58:55 -0700

>> (.txt is in the same dir)

Yes, this is useful. 

Thanks,

Dave
.

---

From: Kevin Darcy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 23:30:24 -0400

>(.txt is in the same dir)
If I'm reading things correctly, the draft now says "... caches [...] 
have no way of guaranteeing that they have all the RRsets". I consider 
that a false statement. In a previous message, I outlined a couple of 
ways a caching resolver could guarantee -- as much as it can guarantee 
anything -- a full complement of RRsets. Briefly, way #1 is to 
selectively ignore caching for QTYPE=* queries (I believe Paul referred 
to this as "read-through"), and way #2 is a modified version of that, 
where the results of QTYPE=* queries are kept in a separate/segregated 
cache (the caching resolver would answer from that cache iff all of the 
constituent RRsets were unexpired, otherwise it would recurse for a 
fresh answer).

It's one thing to describe a behavior that is (believed to be) universal 
throughout all current implementations. It's quite another thing to say 
or imply that any different behavior is *impossible*. It only takes one 
contrarian implementation to make a mockery of the latter claim (I'm 
almost tempted to write such an implementation just to prove my point).

But, as I said earlier, if I'm the only one who sees a problem with 
this, I'll just shut up and let the process continue...

- Kevin

.