Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 29 November 2017 02:03 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 42B03128CFF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 18:03:51 -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=e6I8Mlw8; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=daa5grN2
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 K9uayevIIIby for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 18:03:50 -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 125E2126E7A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 18:03:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59AD8C06D0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 02:03:49 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1511921029; bh=A/vAHL4wnogd25Zk8mctTKRnab0pGD62vaxREz/w994=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=e6I8Mlw8bKhjLXR7XMTAek9BVobZxYIRXzBBGnluMTn4I0T0VC4EBt2WPwByGI6dP I2aYxSptPaBVt5+dttZ+PLoE6yZiFBhu9st783hKGHyg+F2hSrDfq8aCvScwNC32hP R7WY6pn7Y+Hkqn5k342w/tyY6eNb0amymB4HagMM=
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 I1HCmsF5TISG for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 02:03:48 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 21:03:47 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1511921028; bh=A/vAHL4wnogd25Zk8mctTKRnab0pGD62vaxREz/w994=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=daa5grN2stR1cPriuPlv9pxucCdTkmV9AH1pKW4pzJsy30iI++hFAlGi6Wb2S2CpX RypXa3jGjdPNE+RTaBu9RpW1kf7wGnEVTNmPMy7KJbwuIoAYHCP0ZRjq4Nnz3x8W9S mGMMBTd0T7zuZ70hn7Fr6TnVdRZ1UB0xGapTDmHY=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171129020347.b3zq3rcwsubmrlhh@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <20171112075445.tf2ut5dxzhhnqe7l@mx4.yitter.info> <20171128195025.ifzwsjk42wz7ard6@mx4.yitter.info> <FAA4A6D6-1454-4705-B87F-1FB96CC50658@isc.org> <20171129014436.sx546yjwvobepnyp@mx4.yitter.info> <8E36C30A-A7BC-4908-BE06-6D2B8B469006@isc.org> <20171129015303.kthpahbi6w6m645d@mx4.yitter.info> <AE976F3F-0270-4484-BCE4-FE0E9BF9D03E@isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AE976F3F-0270-4484-BCE4-FE0E9BF9D03E@isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/6H-nAvHOlLRwGMU_lJi2gOllYHo>
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 02:03:51 -0000

Hi Mark,

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:57:26PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> You can answer only responses, you can have referral only responses,
> you can partial answer + referral responses.

Where in the algorithm in section 4.3.2 of 1034 (or other, derived
cases like DNAME) is this "partial answer + referral responses"
described?  If this is well-defined somewhere, I want to refer to it.
If it is not, I wish to describe it clearly, because it seems pretty
obvious given the amount of discussion we've had on this topic that
the notion of referral is nowhere near as clear as people seem to
think it is.  I'm not sure I understand your cryptic remark above, but
I am certain  I can't make it more comprehensible to others without
you telling me that I'm wrong and need to do it over.  So I'm
appealing to you to try to make your view as clear as possible.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com