IETF Logo Mail Archive

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
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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email