IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Mon, 13 November 2017 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 4FB01129B50 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:55:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 nYMheXHVw0Uz for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:55:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA43D129B06 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:55:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:dc3:59e3:1fa5:69dc] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:dc3:59e3:1fa5:69dc]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D0EB061FA2; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:55:34 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <5A09EAA6.5010305@redbarn.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:55:34 -0800
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.20 (Windows/20171012)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>
CC: jtk@aharp.iorc.depaul.edu, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
References: <20171112075445.tf2ut5dxzhhnqe7l@mx4.yitter.info> <20171112131831.GA32208@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20171113014445.ncldrwnuuvluecx7@mx4.yitter.info> <5A08FD96.8030907@redbarn.org> <20171113020736.ga7rzgst2hurb56h@mx4.yitter.info> <5A09068A.3030206@redbarn.org> <c66000fbd9174916a1142650298c7632@XCASPRD01-DFT.dpu.depaul.edu> <20171113085235.2fddd72a@p50.localdomain> <CAAiTEH_ikmAryaAXbKxVBHODfJx4Vohb7XWUPnqGw9s41ZR_Bg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAiTEH_ikmAryaAXbKxVBHODfJx4Vohb7XWUPnqGw9s41ZR_Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/5tR7swDjTESg749wAAKqERvt2Nw>
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:55:36 -0000


Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>
>
> On 13 November 2017 at 06:52, John Kristoff <jtk@depaul.edu
> <mailto:jtk@depaul.edu>> wrote:
>
>     REFUSED does not seem ideal to me either, but what if anything might be
>     better is probably ripe discussion in a new draft.
>
> It makes perfect sense to me.  REFUSED is an indication that the querier
> has been blocked from asking that question (or receiving the answer they
> requested) by configuration, as distinct from a broken configuration
> preventing them from getting that answer (SERVFAIL).

why is this nor a broken configuration?

> ... Given that upward
> referrals have obvious problems (There is no protocol or process to tell
> a TLD operator "I am not authoritative for that delegation someone else
> asked you to point at me") it seems to me that REFUSED is the only
> obvious choice for indicating that an authoritative-only server is not
> authoritative for anything at or below the QNAME.

i strongly disagree. this is not an administrative denial scenario. see, 
again:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120111_refusing_refused_for_sopa_pipa/

-- 
P Vixie

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status