<br><br>On Thursday, June 18, 2015, Wessels, Duane <<a href="mailto:dwessels@verisign.com">dwessels@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'm having a hard time believing that an upward referral is or should trigger<br>
a fetch. It seems like standard cache poisoning protection that the recursive<br>
should ignore the out-of-baliwick upward referral.<br>
<br>
So if we are to include this I think we need confirmation either from<br>
a BIND developer or from running our own tests. Do we want to delay<br>
the document for that?</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Nah, not worth delaying for this...</div><div><br></div>And I'd thought it was a BIND person who replied to the thread with that info, but we'd need a better understanding before putting it in the doc. I think upwards referrals do trigger a fetch at the parent, but don't know all the details/ circumstances...<div><br><span></span><div><div> </div><div><br></div><div>W</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
(my thought while reading that bind-users thread was that maybe the OP's<br>
named was repeatedly crashing and restarting).<br>
<br>
DW<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> On Jun 17, 2015, at 6:32 AM, Warren Kumari <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'warren@kumari.net')">warren@kumari.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Whooo. Something I don;t think we remembered to mention in the doc --<br>
> perhaps we should toss in a mention?<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/bind-users@lists.isc.org/msg21023.html" target="_blank">http://www.mail-archive.com/bind-users@lists.isc.org/msg21023.html</a><br>
><br>
> Basically upwards referrals triggering fetches (and cache exhaustion,<br>
> which we *might* have mentioned). Related to the topic, perhaps worth<br>
> mentioning just for completeness?<br>
><br>
> W<br>
><br>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Steve Sheng <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'steve.sheng@icann.org')">steve.sheng@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Thanks Shinta!<br>
>><br>
>> Steve<br>
>><br>
>> On 6/15/15, 11:06 PM, "Shinta Sato" <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'shinta@jprs.co.jp')">shinta@jprs.co.jp</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> Hi Steve-san,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Please check the below comments.<br>
>>> Sorry for my late response that I missed the CoB of 15 June in Japan,<br>
>>> but I believe it is still okay in other countries.<br>
>>><br>
>>> ----------------<br>
>>> 1) whether there are any factual errors with the document.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I didn't see the factual errors, but came up with some questions<br>
>>> and editorial comments. These should be addressed.<br>
>>><br>
>>> - The expressions in the terminology part varies.<br>
>>> - reference to the RFCs exists or not<br>
>>> - way to refer the RFCs<br>
>>> - link to the URL exists or not<br>
>>><br>
>>> - Some abbreviation and words are used without enough descriptions.<br>
>>> ex) AA, TLD, Root Glue, TLD Glue,<br>
>>> NS RRset TTL (whether glue of root(.) itself or TLD<br>
>>> delegation?)<br>
>>><br>
>>> - In the description of the SOA, nothing is mentioned for the<br>
>>> REFRESH and RETRY. These can be described in combination with<br>
>>> EXPIRE, as the parameters for the secondary name servers to<br>
>>> determine the zone transfer timing.<br>
>>><br>
>>> - In the last paragraph of 6.1.1, the word RTT is used to<br>
>>> explain the Figure 2. I could not understand this expression<br>
>>> because the Figure 2 does not contain any information about<br>
>>> RTT. The figure might be wrong.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 2) whether you agree with the study methodology and the conclusions<br>
>>> that are drawn from these studies<br>
>>><br>
>>> I could not find specific problem statement throughout the<br>
>>> document. Thus, the motivation of this study is not clear enough.<br>
>>> It would be better if we can set up the problem with case examples<br>
>>> or specific patterns.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 3) whether you agree with the findings of the report<br>
>>><br>
>>> no objections.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 4) whether you agree with the recommendations in this report<br>
>>><br>
>>> no objections.<br>
>>><br>
>>> If the issue is logically problematic, it should be fixed. But<br>
>>> the other issues which has not been seen as the current<br>
>>> operational problem do not need to be actively addressed. The<br>
>>> recommendations match this way.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 5) whether you have any advice on which of the mitigation options<br>
>>> articulated in section 6.4.3 should be preferred?<br>
>>><br>
>>> The parameters which is not causing the operational problem<br>
>>> directly should not be changed easily. If we shorten the Expire<br>
>>> period, there may be negative operational impact in the case of<br>
>>> communication trouble between root-zone distributor and<br>
>>> root-servers. The parameter of the DNSSEC validity period is the<br>
>>> place we can be changed without other impact.<br>
>>> ----------------<br>
>>><br>
>>> Just let me know if you have any questions in above comments.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Best Regards,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Shinta Sato <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'shinta@jprs.co.jp')">shinta@jprs.co.jp</a>><br>
>>> Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd.<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:41:37 +0000<br>
>>> Steve Sheng <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'steve.sheng@icann.org')">steve.sheng@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Dear RSSAC Caucus,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> This is a reminder for you to review the draft report on TTLs for the<br>
>>>> root<br>
>>>> zone. The review is due by close of business 15 June 2015.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> In particular in your review, it would be great if you could comment<br>
>>>> on:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 1) whether there are any factual errors with the document.<br>
>>>> 2) whether you agree with the study methodology and the conclusions<br>
>>>> that<br>
>>>> are drawn from these studies<br>
>>>> 3) whether you agree with the findings of the report<br>
>>>> 4) whether you agree with the recommendations in this report<br>
>>>> 5) whether you have any advice on which of the mitigation options<br>
>>>> articulated in section 6.4.3 should be preferred?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Also, are there any interest to have a briefing call on this report?<br>
>>>> Right now, the most likely time would be Monday 15 June.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Thanks,<br>
>>>> Steve<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> From: Steve Sheng <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'steve.sheng@icann.org')">steve.sheng@icann.org</a>><br>
>>>> Date: Monday, June 8, 2015 at 1:37 PM<br>
>>>> To: "<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'rssac-caucus@icann.org')">rssac-caucus@icann.org</a>" <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'rssac-caucus@icann.org')">rssac-caucus@icann.org</a>><br>
>>>> Subject: [rssac-caucus] FOR REVIEW: DRAFT RSSAC Report on Root zone<br>
>>>> TTLs<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> Dear RSSAC Caucus,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On behalf of the caucus work party on Root Zone TTLs, attached<br>
>>>> please find<br>
>>>>> for your review the draft RSSAC Report on Root zone TTLs. The work<br>
>>>> party is<br>
>>>>> chaired by Duane Wessels, work party members include Joe Abley, Jaap<br>
>>>>> Akkerhuis, John Bond, Brian Dickson, Shumon Huque, Warren Kumari,<br>
>>>> Duane<br>
>>>>> Wessels (work party leader) and Matthew Thomas (invited expert).<br>
>>>> Staff support<br>
>>>>> are: Steve Sheng, Barbara Roseman and Kathy Schnitt.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Root zone TTLs have not changed since 1999. In this report, the<br>
>>>> RSSAC<br>
>>>>> caucus studies the extent to which the current root zone TTLs are<br>
>>>> still<br>
>>>>> appropriate for today1s internet environment. The report contains a<br>
>>>> number of<br>
>>>>> findings and recommendations through four sets of empirical analyses.<br>
>>>> The work<br>
>>>>> party chair invites you to give this report a careful review.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> One thing the chair wish to highlight is that the work party<br>
>>>> discovered<br>
>>>>> two potential problems related to the interaction between the SOA<br>
>>>> Expire value<br>
>>>>> and the root zone1s signature validity period. It also identified<br>
>>>> several<br>
>>>>> mitigation options, and conducted a preliminary analysis of these<br>
>>>> options.<br>
>>>>> However, the work party has yet to reach a conclusion to recommend<br>
>>>> which<br>
>>>>> measure to take. It would be good to hear some feedback from the<br>
>>>> Caucus. Short<br>
>>>>> of more definitive feedback from the Caucus, the work party will<br>
>>>> recommend<br>
>>>>> further consultation in this area.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The work party chair requests you provide your review by close of<br>
>>>> business<br>
>>>>> (anywhere around the world) 15 June 2015, if possible. This will<br>
>>>> allow the<br>
>>>>> work party time to discuss and finalize the document in time for RSSAC<br>
>>>>> consideration in Buenos Aires.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> All the best,<br>
>>>>> Steve<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> rssac-caucus mailing list<br>
>> <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'rssac-caucus@icann.org')">rssac-caucus@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad<br>
> idea in the first place.<br>
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing<br>
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair<br>
> of pants.<br>
> ---maf<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> rssac-caucus mailing list<br>
> <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'rssac-caucus@icann.org')">rssac-caucus@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div><br><br>-- <br>I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place.<br>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.<br> ---maf<br>