IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] An AD bit discussion

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Wed, 26 February 2014 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
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 6E4881A07F6 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:02:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 osKBPcBZV_kV for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:212:8::e:f42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F361A0205 for <dane@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:02:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:33136) by ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1WIjkj-0000Co-9B (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) for dane@ietf.org (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:02:45 +0000
Received: from fanf2 by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local id 1WIjkj-0008Cq-QL (Exim 4.72) for dane@ietf.org (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:02:45 +0000
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:02:45 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: dane@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20140226182432.GB21390@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1402261842130.13302@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402260845520.3528@bofh.nohats.ca> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1402261638490.13302@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20140226173630.GZ21390@mournblade.imrryr.org> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1402261809330.18502@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20140226182432.GB21390@mournblade.imrryr.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/_7j-GqRp2kfRnq7t_KgZEE3M87c
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 19:02:53 -0000

Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:
>
> I think it requires EDNS0,

The AD bit is in the message header not the OPT pseudo-RR, so
syntactically it doesn't require EDNS0. BIND works OK (try
dig +qr +noedns). However the spec is silent on this matter.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6840#page-10
Also I think it is arguable that RFC 4035 says servers should set the
AD flag in the response regardless of whether the client indicates
it is security-aware. But implementations do not do that.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Lundy, Fastnet, Irish Sea: South veering west 6 to gale 8, occasionally severe
gale 9 at first. Rough or very rough, occasionally high in Fastnet. Showers,
rain for a time. Good, occasionally poor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email