Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)
Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Tue, 14 November 2017 08:06 UTC
Return-Path: <each@isc.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 365E6128DF6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:06:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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 vM2emdSQbqpK for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:06:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (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 E2AEC124234 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:06:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [149.20.48.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 250C93B1174; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:06:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id 10F2D216C1C; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:06:38 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:06:38 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171114080638.GA41253@isc.org>
References: <20171112075445.tf2ut5dxzhhnqe7l@mx4.yitter.info> <20171112131831.GA32208@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20171113014445.ncldrwnuuvluecx7@mx4.yitter.info> <5A08FD96.8030907@redbarn.org> <20171113020736.ga7rzgst2hurb56h@mx4.yitter.info> <5A09068A.3030206@redbarn.org> <20171113032640.tbn7icsllm6jeeny@mx4.yitter.info> <5A09C4D6.6080202@redbarn.org> <20171114063209.gjubqyovnwcrl33a@mx4.yitter.info> <5A0A952F.1060001@redbarn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5A0A952F.1060001@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/87_XKMdA9fHo3gqjoTRGhh9_iLo>
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:06:44 -0000
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:03:11PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote: > while specific guidance was not given as to resolver action in response > to each possible authority RCODE, i have both witnessed and implemented > full resolvers which treated REFUSED as a permanent failure whereas > SERVFAIL was a temporary failure. What do you mean by "permanent" in this context? As far as I know, BIND treats REFUSED as persistent during the resolution process -- i.e., it won't bother to retry the same server with the same query immediately. It would go to the next delegated name server, and if all servers refused, eventually it would return SERVFAIL to the client. It might add the address to a bad server cache; I'm not actually sure whether it does that in this scenario, I'd have to check. If it does, that would keep it from retrying the server for 30 minutes, which is a reasonable recovery time for the "haven't caught up with my inbox" class of error. > treating "i don't have the zone configured" as a REFUSED condition, > while treating "i can't write the secondary zone" or "i can't read the > primary zone" as SERVFAIL conditions, adds no value, but does subtract > it. I'm not seeing the value subtracted. In those two cases, your server knows that it's *supposed* to be authoritative for the zone in question, and that there's a problem preventing it from answering. This fits the definition of SERVFAIL, "unable to process this query due to a problem with the name server", and the other case doesn't. > usually when i don't have a zone configured that is delegated to me, > it's because i have not caught up with my inbox, or i have FUBAR'd my > configuration file using "git" or similar. in those cases, the name > being looked up _might exist_ and retrying later _might succeed_. Or, very likely, the parent zone is misconfigured or out of date, in which case the name doesn't exist and retrying later won't sucseed. Perhaps you run a secondary name service and your customer hasn't paid the bill, or they're in the process of switching to a new provider, or they just put in the wrong glue. Your server isn't failing; it's just being asked for a name it never heard of. > i have heard a number of folks argue that this logic is common, but i > have heard noone argue that it is superior to known alternatives. can we > hear someone who is in favour of this for reasons beyond "five million > frenchmen cannot be wrong"? I wish NOTAUTH had been defined in 1035. Since it wasn't, there are only three answers that make any sense: NOERROR with upward referral, SERVFAIL, REFUSED. We already disposed of upward referral. SERVFAIL gets you spurious retries. REFUSED makes the querant go away for a sensible amount of time; we have ten years of operational experience with it. I don't see the problem. -- Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
- [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) John Kristoff
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: Clarifying referrals (#35) Edward Lewis
- [DNSOP] CDS polling, was Re: [Ext] Re: Clarifying… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] CDS polling, was Re: [Ext] Re: Clarif… Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Matthew Pounsett
- Re: [DNSOP] CDS polling, was Re: [Ext] Re: Clarif… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] CDS polling, was Re: [Ext] Re: Clarif… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Matthew Pounsett
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Matthew Pounsett
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Robert Edmonds
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] CDS polling, was Re: [Ext] Re: Clarif… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] CDS polling, was Re: [Ext] Re: Clarif… Evan Hunt
- [DNSOP] another draft (was Re: Clarifying referra… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] CDS polling, was Re: [Ext] Re: Clarif… Mark Elkins
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] CDS polling, was Re: [Ext] Re: Clarif… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] CDS polling, was Re: [Ext] Re: Clarif… Jacques Latour
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Dave Lawrence
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] CDS polling, was Re: [Ext] Re: Clarif… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] CDS polling, was Re: [Ext] Re: Clarif… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) P Vix
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) P Vix
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Dick Franks
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Dick Franks
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Dick Franks
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Florian Weimer
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Bob Harold
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Wessels, Duane
- Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35) Johannes Naab