Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any

[Matthijs Mekking <[e-mail]>]

On 04-01-17 18:11, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 07:50:48PM -0500,
>  tjw ietf <[e-mail]> wrote
>  a message of 114 lines which said:
>
>> This starts a Working Group Last Call for
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any
>
> Since we'll apparently have one more iteration of the draft, one small
> detail. The draft says:

I'll add some more feedback for the next iteration, that came up during 
a discussion with some colleagues, to make the document more clearer:

1. In section 7, "Updates to RFC 1035" the draft says "ANY does not mean 
ALL" and that it is consistent with RFC 1035, while in fact 1035 does 
say that QTYPE=* means a request for all records. It would be good to 
clarify the statement in section 7 that even if RFC 1035 says that the 
ANY query is a request for *all* records, it is not reliable that this 
also means you get all records. In other words, the response behavior is 
consistent with 1035.

2. "Conventional ANY response" is used but not defined. A line or two 
that defines Conventional ANY response to be "a response that includes 
all the available records at the QNAME" or something like that would be 
a good addition.

3. Insisting that the HINFO OS field SHOULD be empty seems a little too 
strong; perhaps it's better to say "The OS field of the HINFO RDATA 
SHOULD be short to minimize the size of the response. It MAY be empty or 
MAY include a summarized description of local policy." Perhaps even the 
keywords can be lowercased?

Furthermore I would be interested in the problems that Cloudflare 
encountered when implementing the HINFO response. All I could find in 
this thread was "probably a validator will requery with QTYPE=HINFO". Is 
that statement based on observations or assumptions?


Best regards,
   Matthijs