Re: [dnsext] Lame Server responses

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

At 18:52 +0100 10/11/10, George Barwood wrote:

>I agree with BIND, it seems to me that REFUSED is closest to then codes
>defined by the standard.  I expect either SERVERFAIL or REFUSED will
>work perfectly well.

 From reading the spec, neither really applies.  But I think they are 
the only two choices (from the existing pool). I.e., in REFUSED, the 
"eg" uses the word "wishes" which isn't the issue.  OTOH, SERVFAIL 
talks about name server error, which also isn't the issue.  Our bias 
was that it was a system error that caused any earnest query to go to 
a lame server, so we adopted SERVFAIL.  "Course, there's no telling 
what the right thing is for a non-earnest query (like a maintenance 
one, a probing one, a simple mistake).

>I don't see any strong reason to have a specific LAME return code, so
>the chance of introducing one at this stage seems practically zero, even
>if EDNS theoretically allows it.

Given we've lasted this long without an return code, we don't need to 
invent one now.

>Can you think of any other situation that causes REFUSED to be returned (to
>  a normal query)?

AXFR?  Depends on what's normal.  A server that will only answer 
queries with specific TSIG keys?

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at [phone]

Ever get the feeling that someday if you google for your own life story,
you'll find that someone has already written it and it's on sale at Amazon?