IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Tao and Re: BADVER/FORMERR

Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org> Thu, 17 November 2011 01:40 UTC

Return-Path: <rwfranks@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A61D11E8099 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:40:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SqmztqKgfQCg for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:40:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0E411E8081 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:40:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wyf28 with SMTP id 28so1491204wyf.31 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:40:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=CiFI8rjtTbicNuoLL4v0CnVXaB3p5CfAg6kEzTIEzmU=; b=dqAMqXVIl1k9TB8hCNqcGFG0BUpKgQbVN0MWwfdlrO0VS2nr3dKicyoMFvB4/fkeRu Fh7kRYhgzq1vFtsy6L3mvslLF8uIscyvhUfy2/daY/yiGVROujWfpJTz/ThgbGUN2ONQ 48eT57uxrOW/amqlILO7Bllt93cUf+42v2tIE=
Received: by 10.229.69.130 with SMTP id z2mr5031177qci.16.1321494005147; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:40:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rwfranks@gmail.com
Received: by 10.229.212.79 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:39:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <a06240800cae96debacee@10.31.204.66>
References: <20111116004945.D4CC6173AE05@drugs.dv.isc.org> <a06240800cae96debacee@10.31.204.66>
From: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:39:44 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: H9BdU0IbvbOsNcK87Ska3C3mV4k
Message-ID: <CAKW6Ri49iggM_qUkBC=C1aTYYLNV9AkrQDp=UF+j7B_EnWFS=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: dnsext <dnsext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Tao and Re: BADVER/FORMERR
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:40:07 -0000

On 16 November 2011 13:53, Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz> wrote:

> I.e., because you can interpret the RFC to mean something when it says
> nothing is a flimsy place to start an argument.
RFC1035 does not say nothing. It says that the question section is a
list of QDCOUNT elements. QDCOUNT is an unsigned 16 bit integer. From
which we deduce that the question section can possibly be empty.


> I'd suggest going back to "what do we think the right response to an empty
> Question section should be" ...
Mark Andrews has done exactly that and presented a plausible argument
for NOERROR.
I agree with him.

We think the right response to an empty Question section should be NOERROR.


> ... and then see if the installed code base is
> acceptable as is, and then document any decisions.
Code maintainers are free to review the arguments and decide for
themselves what to do.


--Dick

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status