Re: [dane] An AD bit discussion

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 26 February 2014 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214571A0675 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:16:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id devfNt_Yk8pP for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:16:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B6BD1A06A4 for <dane@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8CD80D6D for <dane@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:16:36 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1393431396; bh=uaYe/7EP2GGFqlJStTdOSIZJ7truwDXFLoqZy5jZR+Y=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=DMurruifNOWImu+xbdb0IQOWT0tbGgDn/3l44dXCCPvhgwYSklpCtfRYt+9nNhmuK 7mpUJHibDVKjNJleyNHqLI0YytgvAIcnWTjJXgNJiX8tJjyTP9ysu5Kf/JkQUKOuKW m6vDy/CO17+4yHsFLH5OqgIHoRXxWK72Jcb4lS9Q=
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by bofh.nohats.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id s1QGGa24023339 for <dane@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:16:36 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:16:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: dane@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20140226155752.GT21390@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402261114460.3528@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402260845520.3528@bofh.nohats.ca> <20140226155752.GT21390@mournblade.imrryr.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/C3w0QJlpS29PGC1IWVR-_BjvLvM
Subject: Re: [dane] An AD bit discussion
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities <dane.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/>
List-Post: <mailto:dane@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:16:53 -0000

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:

>> Now for my question. Until we reach 4), what should we do with the AD
>> bit in getaddrinfo() ?
>
> I was not aware of any mechanism in getaddrinfo() to communicate
> the AD bit?  Is this a new getaddrinfo() implementation with features
> I've not looked at yet?

Sorry, I mistook the flags in the struct to be the DNS flags. Let me
rephrase it as "a DNS API call that returns the presence or lack of AD bit"

Paul