IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] Behavior in the face of no answer?

Paul Wouters <paul@cypherpunks.ca> Wed, 09 May 2012 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@cypherpunks.ca>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB839E8015 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 18:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JXRquV6VhjCF for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 18:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from letoams.cypherpunks.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E24E29E800E for <dane@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 18:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by letoams.cypherpunks.ca (Postfix, from userid 500) id B8430853FC; Tue, 8 May 2012 21:00:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by letoams.cypherpunks.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD430803A3; Tue, 8 May 2012 21:00:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 21:00:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@cypherpunks.ca>
X-X-Sender: paul@bofh.nohats.ca
To: Scott Schmit <i.grok@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <20120509005006.GA15139@odin.ulthar.us>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1205082055270.17396@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CABcZeBPTTa07iUHo9XL5WrHGMYHwaQzs6xYtiF25O4Jek8E3RQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120504144426.GD4929@mail.yitter.info> <CABcZeBOM_0L42Rng75AsVda9u4G=FH8=OB8Qg=nQpL-BzRoBuQ@mail.gmail.com> <3FF36EBA-F8B1-4D66-BA00-E8E36A7E449D@kumari.net> <CABcZeBP2iRLa76rSXu4A0OwFxP=tqK1ShZ6wv=6wnaEC6uad+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMfhd9XYS=9SGotCTwa7NJU4L8WFys2rDVsQZxn4a0wz+NxS3Q@mail.gmail.com> <13B3A487-2C93-4958-8FE6-63132742181E@checkpoint.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1205082040330.17365@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1205081547230.14847@bofh.nohats.ca> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1205082113260.17365@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20120509005006.GA15139@odin.ulthar.us>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: dane@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dane] Behavior in the face of no answer?
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 09 May 2012 01:00:10 -0000

On Tue, 8 May 2012, Scott Schmit wrote:

>> What is the overlap between servers that support DNSSEC but not RFC 3597?
>
> RFC 4034 requires use of RFC 3597 for unknown types, so the overlap is
> supposed to be an empty set.

But we all know there are many embedded devices with badly written DNS
proxy software that do things like comparing packets to known byte
streams without actual understanding of bit values.

Paul

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email