IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> Wed, 23 February 2011 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <fweimer@bfk.de>
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 1F1043A68A2 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 07:47:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.224
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.224 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
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 QBiqHl1Y5z17 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 07:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx01.bfk.de (mx01.bfk.de [193.227.124.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEC0D3A6845 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 07:47:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx00.int.bfk.de ([10.119.110.2]) by mx01.bfk.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) id 1PsGwz-0007BI-1U; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:48:25 +0000
Received: by bfk.de with local id 1PsGwy-0005kv-Ug; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:48:24 +0000
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
References: <4D622624.90303@ogud.com> <BF79BE89-20B2-4897-B07C-1426745C4AA9@verisign.com> <AANLkTinQig=e7wv-3GsXi73p3AKQOsbjE6EzDNMbWWRw@mail.gmail.com> <4D63907A.8010700@nlnetlabs.nl> <82zkpnyt3z.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <22348.1298455916@nsa.vix.com> <82ei6zyqqz.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <39328.1298474414@nsa.vix.com>
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:48:24 +0000
In-Reply-To: <39328.1298474414@nsa.vix.com> (Paul Vixie's message of "Wed\, 23 Feb 2011 15\:20\:14 +0000")
Message-ID: <82y656u4zb.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
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: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:47:42 -0000

* Paul Vixie:

>> If it wasn't unclear, why did almost everyone implement the old behavior?
>
> who is everyone?  i don't think bind or nominum or microsoft's or
> american internet's (now cisco's) authority servers have ever sent
> nxdomain on an empty non-terminal, and for a long time that was 100%
> of the market.

The handling of empty non-terminals was changed in BIND 9.2.3,
probably prompted by the standardization work on DNSSECbis.  According
to the CHANGES file, this is RT #4715 in your bug tracker.

> nlnetlabs nsd and verisign atlas both understood the spec in this
> regard also.

Actually, ATLAS sent NXDOMAIN instead of NODATA for existing,
non-delegated names with a missing RRset (that is, empty terminals) at
one point in the not too-distant past.  I don't remember if they
implemented the old BIND behavior, too, but it would be odd to send
NXDOMAIN for empty terminals, and NODATA for empty non-terminals.

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer@bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status