IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Computerworld apparently has changed DNS protocol

David Blacka <davidb@verisign.com> Wed, 04 November 2009 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <davidb@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F5A428C150 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:04:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G99O8a4UjPMX for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:04:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cliffie.verisignlabs.com (mail.verisignlabs.com [65.201.175.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768EB28C14C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:04:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dul1mcdblacka-l2.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (h87.s239.verisign.com [216.168.239.87]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by cliffie.verisignlabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E0281819B; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:04:46 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-5--107787649"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: David Blacka <davidb@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <871vkerpm9.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:04:46 -0500
Message-Id: <CB783B03-4243-4C4E-9A55-73653F9299BF@verisign.com>
References: <200911041858.TAA24009@TR-Sys.de> <FD44BF39-5B62-4689-AC6D-8DFFAF340EA1@icsi.berkeley.edu> <088AD8CD-0245-4F5E-9159-ECF92E9D6B83@virtualized.org> <B67A73DC-8C2B-4B61-A043-96BB00E9A149@verisign.com> <871vkerpm9.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Nicholas Weaver <nweaver@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Computerworld apparently has changed DNS protocol
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 04 Nov 2009 22:04:26 -0000

On Nov 4, 2009, at 3:39 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:

> * David Blacka:
>
>> I actually researched this, and need to spend some time cleaning up
>> the report before posting it to this list.  But the bottom line is
>> that yes, all responses save a few at the apex of root are below  
>> 1500b
>> (actually, below 1100b).  The responses that are larger are ". rrsig"
>> and ". any" (and ". dnskey" if minimal dnskey responses aren't used).
>> ". any" is the only one that would actually set TC if, say, the
>> advertised buffer size were set to 1280.
>
> What about a.root-servers.net/IN/A etc.?  (Assuming that
> root-servers.net will be signed eventually.)

My research didn't cover that, but the responses will still be fairly  
small.  I'm also not making the assumption that root-servers.net will  
be signed eventually.

--
David Blacka                          <davidb@verisign.com>
Sr. Engineer          VeriSign Platform Product Development

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email