[dnsext] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt> (xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification) to Proposed Standard

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Wed, 25 January 2012 03:48 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@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 37F1F11E80AF for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:48:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.297
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.698, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 S1iM6HbR-0Xy for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:48:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580D711E80A5 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:48:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lahl5 with SMTP id l5so906185lah.31 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:48:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tVjnHpd5h/4+tqT9+p7RejwKTXwgq509qEgoPEhNp2k=; b=Z9x/OV8u1ihHrveKijZicFWG2+8yzUJ2UZNXVTNXLS8YgilM7L48Gby+vwARUCRSfH yWv3Pr0AP0j621Ea6mSq/cx093daTp65ShH9TbqSPg7fzFVKjquLHPmzBrbjJQJRoI08 GnUu2VHNGufo4p/+jPpubbuRTTKK0DMvG/fx8=
Received: by 10.152.148.227 with SMTP id tv3mr7892559lab.15.1327463303351; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:48:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.100.131 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:48:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEGVZiLOZcdFMY0um6-Go98=sjQOnMN2+GGFNnOK=vxXbw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120123182317.28636.48689.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120123103439.0a87a228@resistor.net> <CAF4+nEGVZiLOZcdFMY0um6-Go98=sjQOnMN2+GGFNnOK=vxXbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:48:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEGqy0Vg3pRBS_F3fnX6seTbM-AgT6N4yeZU9-zudWgGoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DNSEXT WG <dnsext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [dnsext] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt> (xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification) to Proposed Standard
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: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:48:25 -0000

Sorry, didn't cc DNSEXT...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt> (xNAME
RCODE and Status Bits Clarification) to Proposed Standard
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:04 PM, SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote:
> At 10:23 23-01-2012, The IESG wrote:
>>
>> The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
>> consider the following document:
>> - 'xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification'
>>  <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-02-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
>
>
> From the Introduction Section:
>
>
>  "This document clarifies, in the case of such redirected queries,
>   how the RCODE and status bits correspond to the initial query
>   cycle (where the (first) xNAME was detected) and subsequent or
>   final query cycles."
>
> From Section 2.1:
>
>  "[RFC1035] states that the AA bit is to be set based on whether the
>   server providing the answer with the first owner name in the answer
>   section is authoritative.  This specification of the AA bit has not
>   been changed.  This specification of the AA bit has not been changed."

Actually, the last sentence above is not duplicated in the draft.

> And Section 2.2:
>
>  "[RFC4035] unambiguously states that the AD bit is to be set in a DNS
>   response header only if the DNSSEC enabled server believes all RRs in
>   the answer and authority sections of that response to be authentic.
>   This specification of the AD bit has not been changed."
>
> It is not clear to me what is being clarified about the status bits.

This draft brings together the aspects of the AA, AD, and RCODE bits
related to xNAME RR query cycles and expresses them clearly and
succinctly. As such it has been approved by the DNSEXT WG. I do not
believe that text has to make a change to be a clarification.

> In Section 3:
>
>    "The RCODE in the ultimate DNS response
>     MUST BE set based on the final query cycle leading to that
>     response."
>
> Shouldn't the "BE" be lowercased?

Yes, thanks for pointing this out. "BE" should probably be lowercase.

> The status of the memo suggests sending comments to
> namedroppers@ops.ietf.org.  Is that IETF mailing list still being used by
> DNSEXT?

That was the mailing list at the time of the -00 personal draft
version. Sorry I missed updating the mailing list reference somewhere
along the way.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

> Regards,
> -sm