Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 29 November 2017 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991471270AE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 04:25:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=GHlxJo9u; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=gCXBAWtZ
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mESyz2LpRJeJ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 04:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62900127005 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 04:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE2F4BD337 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:25:54 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1511958354; bh=NX6C05QucjxJfz/6D0PtqG2mCq1r06GnS7x/5myMuws=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=GHlxJo9uKLd9sYgaD9R7Drl+6Nwt11Wfg1LJ5mVw4l2LNfZ0zrynQNXpfL7UooBGc Ji+E0KaLAFuhInb1q6Ux7RnQJCAWHNj3SoKwr0uvWg1MPhvdu146h1+SWmj+sapI0j nfaO9SUKqYsAsnuVIwL4bB7tY4jJ1yez5N7jJw58=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2hflbClCwdqH for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:25:53 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 07:25:53 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1511958353; bh=NX6C05QucjxJfz/6D0PtqG2mCq1r06GnS7x/5myMuws=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=gCXBAWtZ6cm1chZ0NL11+TLWfK/qYzcq1nSbdFk5cb+FLZQ2V0vtyTZ5cr7NT075m DKzoemh8+xEK6IWln+BNapFqRErbrZC5cH20jV7Ou/BCsmpsakj2sEelkpU5vlmIVG PXsV25N/RVfv98lqZPzyZnHazQ2j3VvKTtMjjRgo=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171129122553.oyx5ftqoifbnkw7h@anvilwalrusden.com>
References: <20171112075445.tf2ut5dxzhhnqe7l@mx4.yitter.info> <20171128195025.ifzwsjk42wz7ard6@mx4.yitter.info> <5A1DEEE1.3070809@redbarn.org> <20171129014748.7rrm2tvwdnjdl6ss@mx4.yitter.info> <20171129023720.GA99800@isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171129023720.GA99800@isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-smUtuIja-n5ST9cR6sUY4xvctM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:25:56 -0000

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 02:37:20AM +0000, Evan Hunt wrote:
> 
> I think the phrasing is unclear because "this response is not required to
> work" is ambiguous. The response *itself* doesn't have to work?  Or the
> resolver can get along without this response?  I took it to mean the
> latter, but I see how it could be confusing.

Yep, got it.

> I'd suggest something like "this response is not strictly speaking
> necessary, as it provides no information the resolver didn't already
> have; resolution can succeed without it."

How about, "This kind of response is not required for resolution or
for correctly answering any query, and in practice some authoritative
server operators will not return referral responses beyond those
required for delegation"?

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com