Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error and combinations of EDEs and RCODEs

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Thu, 12 September 2019 01:13 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.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 DB8E3120C33 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 S_YfPL2EQvzG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9969F120C61 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PFE112-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with ESMTPS id x8C1DXmn019507 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 12 Sep 2019 01:13:34 GMT
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:13:32 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.005; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:13:32 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
CC: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error and combinations of EDEs and RCODEs
Thread-Index: AQHVaDwUuh9GfPuORUWdlCz1lUtrfqcnGYbzgACZ74A=
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 01:13:31 +0000
Message-ID: <21136294-FDFD-4A99-9529-E79C45E79535@icann.org>
References: <EA557043-34D1-43EA-B750-4A17CFC6BE50@icann.org> <ybl36h4aj8x.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <AFE92D06-8418-4451-A827-D5656C83B796@icann.org> <yblzhjbeova.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <067589D2-8E7E-47FA-867C-72E266A55D6D@icann.org> <CADyWQ+EB-eotvTdYwNv5Oo4=-mibdgEgpkQ3yh37orAwp-AgWg@mail.gmail.com> <ybly2yubfnp.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
In-Reply-To: <ybly2yubfnp.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <0A1A7A3ACEBAF54D99FE17A48490F45C@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-09-11_11:, , signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/83_ovzo6Y9cwJCuXDlQesKYYsl4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error and combinations of EDEs and RCODEs
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 01:13:42 -0000

On Sep 11, 2019, at 4:02 PM, Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>; wrote:
> 
> Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>; writes:
> 
>> it sounds to me that a discussion on assumptions with EDEs and RCODES
>> would be useful in the security considerations section as well. 
> 
> I'll look at wording along those lines.
> 
> Note, however, that EDE codes are specifically meant as supplemental
> information and shouldn't be "acted" upon.  Hence
> 
> Paul> A developer writes code that assumes that EDE X must go with RCODE Y
> Paul> because the text for EDE X indicates that. The get a response with EDE
> Paul> X and RCODE Z. The code rejects that, and does not act on RCODE Z.
> 
> "does not act on RCODE Z" is already the right approach, since it's
> unauthenticated in the first place (which is discussed in the
> document).

I do not understand this. Many receivers of RCODEs act on them even though they are unauthenticated. A recursive resolver receiving a message with RCODE of SERVFAIL will look at other authoritative servers, for example.

--Paul Hoffman