IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 04 May 2012 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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 75A9B21E803D for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 13:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.629
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.629 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.030, 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 QJPicbG+XF1C for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 13:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7D621E803C for <dane@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 13:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9A031ECB41C for <dane@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 20:10:36 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 16:10:35 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dane@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20120504201030.GH7394@mail.yitter.info>
References: <20120504023602.GA4683@mail.yitter.info> <CABcZeBO93n_C5detefBcOjAoswe2inGKDj65gQPDQmREyGnhAw@mail.gmail.com> <20120504112922.GB4929@mail.yitter.info> <CABcZeBPTTa07iUHo9XL5WrHGMYHwaQzs6xYtiF25O4Jek8E3RQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120504144426.GD4929@mail.yitter.info> <CABcZeBOM_0L42Rng75AsVda9u4G=FH8=OB8Qg=nQpL-BzRoBuQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120504165512.GC7394@mail.yitter.info> <CABcZeBO4zRSa=JexqZ8uw7o26tM4SZk2GDivTAWD5ZF1pZR9Og@mail.gmail.com> <20120504194132.GF7394@mail.yitter.info> <CABcZeBPhApOBNxBZfjJ9KSj7=_kZ6yL0gCnu5wkBVi+3yhAQJg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPhApOBNxBZfjJ9KSj7=_kZ6yL0gCnu5wkBVi+3yhAQJg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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: Fri, 04 May 2012 20:10:47 -0000

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:48:15PM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> Now I'm really confused. What do you think the draft says about "no response"

Nothing, at the moment.  You've made this point quite clear.  I
thought that's what we were discussing.

The draft currently _does_ have something to say about no _answer_
-- i.e. a NODATA DNS response.  What that means is that there isn't a
TLSA RR at that owner name, so you should use something else (probably
traditional TLS processing).  

Best,

a

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email