IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] need new flag bit in EDNS, "do me no favours" (DMNF)

Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> Mon, 25 October 2010 01:46 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F2603A68EC; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.244
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.244 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.354, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 TbL3HOuiCyJg; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E8E33A6767; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1PAC6S-000DIL-Bn for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 01:44:00 +0000
Received: from mail-fx0-f52.google.com ([209.85.161.52]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>) id 1PAC6P-000DI6-8E for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 01:43:57 +0000
Received: by fxm12 with SMTP id 12so1771967fxm.11 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=03rnPffOPKw+aXndJwE/zVs957Lp+6L+e1VjwskgmqE=; b=OHt6leIKZ8PkVh/EGMyMHcqlWq8FcvvyYOAQSHRF0/1FXdtCR13PXM8yXEZA2eEqVP itZY4J2G4PQUpw9DLAJ6KYDWblYREfOVNKDpSNh05m2nVMSH382VTOP3qikcQEXRXd/D 2FKA+YeM1X9lv1vC+nGKQ3bt/W2ZG/liMrVt4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=ojOvoshQPhLiM7bZLRjPcBbVqnn4ufSqXwJ2BzDpKyffrok5TXeQ7GVipKnMhaS8Ki A6jsKFLeBDKReQWYf7EeFRU94eBBmBPcBHZ+zCFzGN9Z1SakLn7DPklPkYwQ35glJYLX OUulhluFaZ77AaO/Upr0yMyygRpzOa7CEljww=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.161.18 with SMTP id n18mr7458301muo.31.1287971036066; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.114.145 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87750.1287968905@nsa.vix.com>
References: <C8EA875A.83BA%roy@nominet.org.uk> <8D01F5E3-F863-4873-BB0E-654FA89983F7@virtualized.org> <AANLkTim-N5CByUnUr-aTYML_88hOxTJEsNKa=jkGaGfs@mail.gmail.com> <87750.1287968905@nsa.vix.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:43:56 -0300
Message-ID: <AANLkTinyupXJ8ABNK=wX8o3atDp9dDw9GYW=7R1GGD1H@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] need new flag bit in EDNS, "do me no favours" (DMNF)
From: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
Cc: "namedroppers@ops.ietf.org" <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e657b59816071a0493672077"
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
List-Unsubscribe: the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
List-Archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> wrote:

> > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:52:12 -0300
> > From: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
> >
> > At the risk of sounding facetious, I think we already have a "DMNF" bit:
> > DO (plus CD bit, i.e. security-aware stub resolvers).
>
> that's a workaround not a signal.  so, if there's a secure path from a
> trust anchor to the qname AND if the stub is validating THEN this has
> the same effect as DMNF.
>
> however, for unsecured names or nonvalidating stubs, i'd like an
> explicit signal.  thus, DMNF.  so far david conrad thinks a short i-d
> could be worthwhile, so that's two (me and him).  anybody else?
>
>
Sorry, I forgot to also say, I am not opposed, since there's the cases you
indicated.

I am in favor of an i-d as well, and would happily review it.

Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email