IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] WG opinion on draft : Improvements to DNS Resolvers, for Resiliency, Robustness, and Responsiveness

Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> Mon, 21 February 2011 23:27 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 49FA13A635F for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:27:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <isEUBB7rNyR5>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Duplicate header field: "Cc"
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 isEUBB7rNyR5 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:27:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nsa.vix.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb:230:48ff:fe5a:2f38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D5A3A6359 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:27:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nsa.vix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nsa.vix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59F3A1059; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:28:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vixie@isc.org)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:43:51 EST." <20110221224349.GT32224@shinkuro.com>
References: <4D622624.90303@ogud.com> <BF79BE89-20B2-4897-B07C-1426745C4AA9@verisign.com> <76781.1298327469@nsa.vix.com> <20110221224349.GT32224@shinkuro.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.2; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:28:08 +0000
Message-ID: <80121.1298330888@nsa.vix.com>
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] WG opinion on draft : Improvements to DNS Resolvers, for Resiliency, Robustness, and Responsiveness
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: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:27:28 -0000

> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:43:51 -0500
> From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
> 
> My reading of RFC 2181, section 5.2 says that it is an error and a
> protocol violation.  Does that need more clarification?

yes. no initiator i know of discards rrsets just due to ttl variance.
therefore the guideance to initiators is effectively "do what BIND4
4.9 did" in other words treat the whole rr set as though it had the
ttl of the lowest rr therein.  if rfc 2181 does not make this clear
then it is not providing reasonable and actionable guideance.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email