IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Re: need new flag bit in EDNS, "do me no favours" (DMNF)

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Tue, 26 October 2010 10:11 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021563A6938; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:11:53 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XciBIVNVHpLB; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D1383A691F; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1PAgTh-0001cS-3j for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:10:01 +0000
Received: from router.rfc1035.com ([195.54.233.65] helo=hutch.rfc1035.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <jim@rfc1035.com>) id 1PAgTe-0001c4-Ij for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:09:58 +0000
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jim) by hutch.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A5F115420A1 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:09:54 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <77076B79-87E2-45AE-8ACB-B50CF55D386B@rfc1035.com>
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
To: IETF DNSEXT WG <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <78766.1288064363@nsa.vix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Re: need new flag bit in EDNS, "do me no favours" (DMNF)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:09:54 +0100
References: <59023.1287939121@nsa.vix.com> <20101025094523.GA5187@nic.fr> <41281.1288025835@nsa.vix.com> <20101025233215.4A495606495@drugs.dv.isc.org> <72674.1288058394@nsa.vix.com> <AANLkTimwXkUrYHveahqTMZe=V8zu8LG1MJ3HtQEZAoDW@mail.gmail.com> <78766.1288064363@nsa.vix.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
List-Unsubscribe: the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
List-Archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

On 26 Oct 2010, at 04:39, Paul Vixie wrote:

>> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 19:46:35 -0700
>> From: Colm MacCárthaigh <colm@allcosts.net>
>>
>> Why doesn't that belong better in HTTP? The HTTP WG is probably  
>> better
>> placed to define whatever a "web error" is.
>
> if you get an nxdomain you won't be connecting to any web server  
> anywhere.

Not long ago Colm was in favour of using DNS to solve a web problem.  
Paul was advocating the opposite. Now it's the other way round for  
both. Oh, the irony... :-)

BTW, I thought NXDOMAIN had been overtaken by response rewriting these  
days?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email