Re: [dnsext] Signaling ENDS option understanding in draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes-01

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Thu, 29 March 2012 23:36 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 4847721F86B2 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.515
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 IbSkkPn-P-jW for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A8121F86A5 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B74B5C944A; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:36:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:b9d2:d2a7:a07b:5597]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 602C1216C33; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:36:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6CD21F3B95D; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:36:08 +1100 (EST)
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <201203292010.WAA20455@TR-Sys.de> <87bonfkvbm.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 Mar 2012 22:26:21 +0200." <87bonfkvbm.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:36:07 +1100
Message-Id: <20120329233608.C6CD21F3B95D@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cc: Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de>, dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Signaling ENDS option understanding in draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes-01
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, 29 Mar 2012 23:36:41 -0000

In message <87bonfkvbm.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer writes:
> * Alfred H=F6nes:
> 
> > To this end, IIRC the WG has decided that RFC 2671 contains enough
> > specification, and the rfc2671bis draft again clarifies that DNS
> > servers recieving an OPT RR in a query MUST ignore unknown options.
> 
> I think this is rewriting history.  BIND used to respond with RCODE=1
> to queries carrying the new NSID option, for example.  And I'm sorry
> to say that this obnoxious behavior is even suggested by the language
> in RFC 2671.

Which version of BIND?  Not 9.1.0 nor 9.2.0 nor 9.3.0 nor 9.4.0 which
are the early BIND 9 production releases.  I don't believe BIND 8
returned FORMERR based on code inspection.
 
> > Thus, according to my understanding, a conformant recipient of an
> > OPT RR in a DNS query behaves as follows:
> >
> > a) no support for EDNS present
> >    (either not built-in or disabled by config):
> >    ignore entire OPT RR, do not include OPT RR into response;
> >    possible legacy alternative: return FormErr;
> 
> RFC 2671bis requires the RCODE=1 response, see:
> 
> From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
> Subject: Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-08.txt
> To: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
> Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:06:02 +0100
> Message-ID: <871upyept1.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
> 
> > b) support for EDNS present, but no support present for a particular
> >    option received: ignore it, do not include it in response;
> > c) support for particular EDNS option present:
> >    behave according to the specification of that option
> >    (which may be: echo the received option unchanged, or otherwise).
> 
> b) and c) seem correct to me, with the caveat that reflecting the
> query with the original OPT RR does not mean the server supports your
> protocol extension.  You need to bits to tell an active implementor
> from a reflector.  (Kind of what was done with ECN for TCP,
> eventually.)
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org