IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] An AD bit discussion

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Wed, 26 February 2014 18:16 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 B4B601A075C for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:16:30 -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 wSovrw_y1GUx for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:16:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:212:8::e:f32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D311A00A9 for <dane@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:16:27 -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]:58186) by ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1WIj1t-0006wn-2j (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) for dane@ietf.org (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:16:25 +0000
Received: from fanf2 by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local id 1WIj1t-0003vT-QF (Exim 4.72) for dane@ietf.org (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:16:25 +0000
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:16:25 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: dane@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20140226175012.GA21390@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1402261816080.18502@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> <530E274D.6030500@redhat.com> <20140226175012.GA21390@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/u1u90NtkUfh-WtJXTmjuXIPyCMQ
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 18:16:30 -0000

Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 06:41:33PM +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
>
> > Could you elaborate on reasons for setting AD=1, please?
>
> With "DO=1", applications that only care about the AD bit in the
> reply also receive unwanted "RRSIG" records.

Exactly.

> Setting "AD=1" may however require a new request option bit,

Definitely.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Forties, Cromarty, Forth, Tyne, Dogger: Southwest 5 to 7, backing south or
southeast 6 to gale 8 for a time. Moderate or rough. Showers then rain. Good,
becoming moderate or poor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email