IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05

Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com> Sun, 16 October 2016 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <matt@conundrum.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 AD9C112958C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=conundrum-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 F7GONq0tFOmh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22d.google.com (mail-qk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79E781294CC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id z190so199684731qkc.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=conundrum-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=HE0hbu1U+U4WtpaTOvq6izru1uunUd0QYUDu3UqYYwQ=; b=i5PRqTG05J9SKCtmlIV3dyuBOL506irMMuc5QU5dKFLAwhzKOLRU1CeFUYhq7SRccr nW/TSV+teUw57emtkl5ov4PFRUI4WlSjd1efZjSasqoBm8GTiQNlAL9nByqkRIDZcLm8 GgtiWaMo8ka9wggq4rNomQpSOEGo6JrBVrd9kECpmyQBNG5j4VAu9ZJrwnWY7GB4a8W5 o9k+gLSCkS0aSz/pNYGUoOyp7XtGWTecNx3ifWC3SN+3DV8MasOgZYVPZho7q68adCxT 8M1IqWvMQaBE4iqNHIw+2xQsFNecFMswe82Cthi8Exa9zUdgkOmZgC3BEtkfAhVy/FME R6Ug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=HE0hbu1U+U4WtpaTOvq6izru1uunUd0QYUDu3UqYYwQ=; b=KW9H+ZWApMWhiZgZ1GCxXNPRzcy2xe5HntZ9C99IkfSM9eZwziltl8fmRK7clL0aqt i1T64DVktrOsOIqr4Rh2c53Gwjde5psPQBhs1TP3S7SPsAA6vmt69dB6xqnmxeHA+E9p Sor99q/Ngi1wxneZjiqZc3YjG4x6VHM3rHQ8uQzerVKTTf12cZCLN4PZmNdDmRQPufJd IQzYip/Z4tj15duBKjrFNYQSegr/p0x7aQZNddQpzau+nRrb7tz2EES9oP9Ozrw4xUrv usKu4gnx/GNocWe1IgZQhFxjQtrlOrQkjvKtYUB6TGgPb6dstjfxU2UyydlX+IO8LYvo tuPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rlv0X9BQYZExc1qbSZ0fOCvt1K4APgQYggBKzrt+ydCfb4lBqUczR1t1Gv2VSomexg+hk2ipzyAg+XkFQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.73.84 with SMTP id w81mr18606690qka.191.1476630377995; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.35.249 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2620:0:ce0:101:e11b:1c0b:3a5c:140]
In-Reply-To: <20161010173318.GT4670@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <CAAiTEH9Rbw4u3gV9GULQ-8WdoPHf3SXQMTRY+CtfUGrNQSGAWw@mail.gmail.com> <20161010023251.241F1560C844@rock.dv.isc.org> <CACfw2hiV9+qQ_OysHAQ4jd4fJtN2a=mrHqDiTkg4JArQ_LoGtQ@mail.gmail.com> <20161010145642.401EB56260C8@rock.dv.isc.org> <20161010173318.GT4670@mournblade.imrryr.org>
From: Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:06:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAiTEH-V-Rx2fS+qyMnMc1mVr43VSx48hSoGubUdEP+t8A+C-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114a87d0253be6053efccd98"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7bwNUy261IUEqIBQzbvKykhJuLM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:06:22 -0000

On 10 October 2016 at 12:33, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 01:56:42AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > If the IETF was setting servers that went and checked DNS servers
> > and informed the operators then the IETF would be in the business
> > of enforcing protocols.  At this stage I don't see the IETF doing
> > that nor is this document asking the IETF to do that.
> >
> > The is a difference between innovation and not exercising care /
> > lazyness.
> >
> > Returing FORMERR because you see a EDNS flag you don't understand
> > is not innovation.
> >
> > Returing FORMERR because you see a EDNS option you don't understand
> > is not innovation.
> >
> > Returing FORMERR because you see a EDNS version you don't understand
> > is not innovation.
> >
> > If there was anything innovative in what I'm seeing I'd be all for
> > it but there isn't.
>
> Amen.  This draft documents widely problematic behaviour that is
> seen much too often.  It is good to have it all written down in
> one place.
>

I agree.  It is very useful in that respect.

The specific issue we're discussing here is whether the draft can/should
require certain actions from DNS operators based on the behaviour of child
zones.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email