IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Fwd: djb on NXDOMAIN/NODATA for non-terminals

Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> Wed, 30 March 2011 22:46 UTC

Return-Path: <vixie@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAACC3A6B70 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, 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 5J1i1d96l7oq for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nsa.vix.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb:230:48ff:fe5a:2f38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08513A6B28 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nsa.vix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nsa.vix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234B8A1037 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:48:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vixie@isc.org)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:27:14 -0400." <a06240800c9b93e602208@[10.31.200.115]>
References: <AANLkTimCZVyag8+Pv8zJsah2B-C=h3bPJ=DNVVo3agLc@mail.gmail.com> <34319.1301351478@nsa.vix.com> <BANLkTikkx4ndK3TpByptuRdtPGuFztm2yA@mail.gmail.com> <65033.1301383238@nsa.vix.com> <82ei5qz3bi.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <84978.1301403827@nsa.vix.com> <82fwq6vsvk.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <94669.1301414190@nsa.vix.com> <a06240806c9b7b2040e80@[10.31.200.119]> <95465.1301414968@nsa.vix.com> <a06240807c9b7b5a6e892@[10.31.200.119]> <82vcz0n7a4.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <a06240800c9b93e602208@[10.31.200.115]>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:48:25 +0000
Message-ID: <1330.1301525305@nsa.vix.com>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Fwd: djb on NXDOMAIN/NODATA for non-terminals
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:46:50 -0000

> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:27:14 -0400
> From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
> ...
> Dan Bernstein's statement (as found in [0]) that returning NXDOMAIN for
> empty non-terminals is acceptable because buggy code did this in the past
> is an interesting point.  While technically wrong to do so, this code is
> out there and to accommodate (work around the bug), optimizing according
> what is in section 3 would be sub-optimal.  I would never say that NXDOMAIN
> for empty non-terminals is correct as a protocol analyst.  But if I was
> dealing with buggy code, I'd play the "be liberal in what you accept" card.

when the buggy code was bind4 and we had a 100% market share and the bug
was that all axfr's coming toward us had to have one rr per header, we
did not ask for a spec change, we declared the code bad and fixed it.

if we don't want to do that with rbldnsd given its 0.00005% market share
and that really is the consensus of the working group, we can remove the
text.  i'd like to hear from different voices to help judge consensus.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email