Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Wed, 31 January 2018 19:28 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 2215412EBEB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:28:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 trhIhfngSd7X for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:28:07 -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 837AB12F280 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [100.68.181.206] (BOINGO-WIRE.ear1.Dallas1.Level3.net [4.14.17.198]) (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 7ED627594C; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 19:28:04 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <5A7218C4.5020301@redbarn.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:28:04 -0800
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.22 (Windows/20171208)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
CC: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <9DCE2F63-EE37-4865-B9D6-6B79BBE05593@gmail.com> <20180129155112.GC16545@mx4.yitter.info> <5A6F5CF1.4080706@redbarn.org> <CA+nkc8D7tne5SxGOUhvJqstmDa=1=RmvcHQte1byAab5dUd5sQ@mail.gmail.com> <AE634FC4-0EAF-4F54-8860-61E41284F873@fugue.com> <20180130185919.GJ19193@mx4.yitter.info> <3b57a486-df8e-ca57-ab89-c167cea0dcc9@bellis.me.uk>
In-Reply-To: <3b57a486-df8e-ca57-ab89-c167cea0dcc9@bellis.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/6MA9FLVJbHOVq3i1s9IbGMMtJqw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02
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, 31 Jan 2018 19:28:09 -0000


Ray Bellis wrote:
> On 30/01/2018 18:59, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Because of that same section, also, signing the answer should also not
>> be controversial because the answer is static.  My preference,
>> however, would be for the root servers to REFUSE to answer such
>> queries.
>
> Won't that cause the resolver to cycle through every root server letter
> hoping for one that doesn't give that answer?

yes. that's what REFUSED is taken to mean, and also, why we never use it 
for data-dependent conditions. only the initiator's identity matters in 
the consideration of whether to transmit REFUSED or not.

-- 
P Vixie