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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Mon, 21 February 2011 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@shinkuro.com>
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 6F81C3A7198 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:43:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 UBwuF9eHzrIn for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:43:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A283A70F9 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:43:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D08171ECB408 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:43:52 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:43:51 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110221224349.GT32224@shinkuro.com>
References: <4D622624.90303@ogud.com> <BF79BE89-20B2-4897-B07C-1426745C4AA9@verisign.com> <76781.1298327469@nsa.vix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <76781.1298327469@nsa.vix.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
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 22:43:11 -0000

No hat.

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:31:09PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:

> well, so, the protocol gives each RR a TTL and the original specification
> does not say what to do if the TTLs in an RR set differ.  in BIND4 4.9, i
> decided to discard the whole RR set if any of its TTLs reached zero since
> otherwise we'd be modifying RR sets during TTL expiration.  in RFC 2136 i
> enshrined this behaviour into the protocol by declaring "RR set atomicity".
> but editorially speaking i still think it's wise to say "discard when the
> minimum TTL in the RR set is reached" since the wire protocol allows TTLs
> to be different across an RR set and sending them out that way is not an
> error or a protocol violation.

My reading of RFC 2181, section 5.2 says that it is an error and a
protocol violation.  Does that need more clarification?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.