Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.txt

Dave Lawrence <> Wed, 06 March 2019 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A6F6127980 for <>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 08:27:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NI_vmHU6xXQU for <>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 08:27:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FB3712796D for <>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 08:27:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 102) id 1DB8728F7C; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 11:27:18 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 11:27:18 -0500
From: Dave Lawrence <>
To: dnsop <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <4253851.Zqd2zPpPcC@linux-9daj> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 16:27:21 -0000

Joe Abley writes:
> if you can find a set of DNS authority servers that silently
> discards a particular kind of query, sending such queries through
> resolvers that are known to support serve-stale might suppress other
> queries and trigger the serve-stale behaviour even though the
> authority servers are not actually unresponsive for them.

RFC 2308 section 7.2 made it clear that when caching a dead server
indication, "The indication MUST be stored against query tuple <query
name, type, class, server IP address> unless there was a transport
layer indication that the server does not exist, in which case it
applies to all queries to that specific IP address."

The scenario described in one of a resolver that is modern enough to
have implemented standards-compliant serve-stale behavior but is still
not standards-compliant with a two decade old RFC, interacting over a
path with a delegation to authoritative servers that are all
exhibiting erratic behavior.  This needs some supporting evidence that
it could really be a real-world problem that needs to be addressed.