[DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any - why not NOTIMP?

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Mon, 07 August 2017 11:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 459C51321A0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 04:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 lS_sHanxvd40 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 04:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 012B113219C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 04:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [46.227.151.81] (port=54459 helo=rays-mbp.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1defzK-0004Sx-B0 (Exim 4.72) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Mon, 07 Aug 2017 12:14:22 +0100
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <6c97191d-9591-d7de-6e8b-ed6e460c7707@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:14:23 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4aE-5WbxfYVV_IYLgES947uAhQY>
Subject: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any - why not NOTIMP?
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: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 11:14:27 -0000

Having looked at this a few months ago when one of our partners was
(briefly) returning NOTIMP for ANY queries, I find myself wondering why
this isn't discussed in the draft?

The draft does talk about *new* RCODEs, but not existing ones.

My reading of RFC 1035 is that it would be a perfectly appropriate
response from a server that doesn't support ANY.

Unfortunately the retry semantics of DNS are not well specified and
therefore implementation differences may occur.  If as a result NOTIMP
is really not usable then IMHO this should also be documented.

Ray