Re: [dane] An AD bit discussion

Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org> Wed, 26 February 2014 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org>
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 25AB81A06A9 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:22:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 OZ9rq1PSkT_b for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:22:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [38.117.134.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DCB81A068F for <dane@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:22:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1034) id 5AF802AAD0C; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:22:21 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:22:21 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org>
To: dane@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140226162221.GV21390@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402260845520.3528@bofh.nohats.ca> <20140226155752.GT21390@mournblade.imrryr.org> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402261114460.3528@bofh.nohats.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402261114460.3528@bofh.nohats.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/W2AL-xQlhsvxFA5DC72uTjKrXeQ
Subject: Re: [dane] An AD bit discussion
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dane@ietf.org
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 16:22:25 -0000

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:16:36AM -0500, Paul Wouters 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"

I, for one, no longer know what you're asking.  Not enough context.
If your question is not about getaddrinfo(), can you ask it again
with a bit of context?  Are you asking what applications should
(in general?) do with the AD bit from stub resolvers?  Or how
libraries should report the AD bit from DNS to applications when
the library has a mechanism to do so unambiguously?  Or ...?

-- 
	Viktor.