IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> Sun, 24 October 2010 23:54 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 DA1683A6922; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.396, 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 najmGHQYsuxZ; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3ECB3A6921; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1PAAML-0004mj-D7 for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:52:17 +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 1PAAMH-0004mK-Tv for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:52:14 +0000
Received: by fxm12 with SMTP id 12so1709895fxm.11 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:52:12 -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=i/8Y6yiepDYT48mzdSd/3UE85pw/P3aayR/zHwma2gA=; b=u4VUW/aM8gQq1aKPMCWXPBZHeYyO4SMxdL16ADSYqOCp81FmPeSOfAx+8OWPPwbJFP wrN+VCOKp2PPdBIFoeNCUfre1smh8IBXMIThpL2NyT68YlCtb0q0N0P63g49zlod/4qK /w9EdS/o7SG5VWxSSThExdbHVPGZM8iYG5FtE=
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=b6MuqkAucNfbTT5VNBbCMLLhKaDfiV1R+905rjJMr64KQQs35zCYIh/uLrCcsb6eNI 1UAGlFnNvZZ6iRBQ+Xebfwe1NdQaTePyL6Q2DZgn4Dj71xRCpdTAoHbianevNHn3EYMC aZOyyNGQtdXZWjCMze8SDtgfrn5waO0xSSLzk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.181.5 with SMTP id i5mr301738mup.48.1287964332314; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.114.145 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8D01F5E3-F863-4873-BB0E-654FA89983F7@virtualized.org>
References: <C8EA875A.83BA%roy@nominet.org.uk> <8D01F5E3-F863-4873-BB0E-654FA89983F7@virtualized.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:52:12 -0300
Message-ID: <AANLkTim-N5CByUnUr-aTYML_88hOxTJEsNKa=jkGaGfs@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: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: Roy Arends <roy@nominet.org.uk>, Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>, "namedroppers@ops.ietf.org" <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00163641715b82cf2d0493659015"
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 8:24 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:

> On Oct 24, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Roy Arends wrote:
> > On 10/24/10 6:52 PM, "Paul Vixie" <vixie@isc.org> wrote:
> >> opin?  i can write a short i-d on it before beijing.
>
> I think a short i-d would be worthwhile.
>
> > The end-game will be applications doing their own resolving. Real
> control.
> > No third party dependencies. No favors to ask.
>
> And greatly reduced caching.
>
>
s/applications/hosts/, I think. The endgame is a local resolver or stub
resolver, or lwres library from a "real" dns package - not cobbled-together
application-centric "resolver" code.

And yes, caching would be reduced for no real benefit (other than presuming
to receive valid replies).

At the risk of sounding facetious, I think we already have a "DMNF" bit: DO
(plus CD bit, i.e. security-aware stub resolvers).

If DNSSEC answers are received, and authenticate properly, by definition, no
favors can have been done.

This is another reason to support DNSSEC, IMHO.

Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email