IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Another suggestion for "any"

Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> Wed, 11 March 2015 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16101A004B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ovpoWWtodMvK for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22f.google.com (mail-ig0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22f]) (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 49F761A06FD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbhn18 with SMTP id hn18so13734939igb.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=hKQ5tz3n+SerEyQvHa7PF3lLxXnaNiwpBwjHMUDy8+o=; b=PysC/kMc/W5ihYxENA96Lg7v9lBoNWjlnWIsnIJb26G7eHT+/AHhMJtGQUP/nFjt3p yUnNXPWKdK988+THVlzI3OgOYoxLHm09QJPWsFRhK4t31D2Xh6Hso8r5Ms9j6t6BGEbi vpqSZzxfT7CKOiW9ZXmHkOw5TAqnaJU/C7PPCkjJ/jFqD9svpjc+ojWNeWGbrgvCOtdv Hkp1FCANyBkUi+ZEYH/GnyfiZduyVYryK8FkcUqLOZHyv0wIgSNOGXloKgx2ygPw13J8 w/kbfjGvpRKX8hG4TfxUs0z8wfz2H6Z3cE5jqTN3R5/24vYDrq8VR97+7G3NSPvKnidB SN0Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.3.164 with SMTP id e36mr23714022ioi.70.1426091546777; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.57.201 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55000443.8020000@redbarn.org>
References: <CAH1iCiqdZn10oB_vYh0ePXkaAwX_iY+No3XKyfqk_c3zJyFuAA@mail.gmail.com> <55000443.8020000@redbarn.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:32:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAH1iCip3BZLnW9O6CcZ_6F5N39EG6EQBdBdj2BtOOwd_LapsGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="001a113ecf1c103797051105d0b4"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/AiCV1mMAFCgYYTaDsWAgRXXggFA>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Another suggestion for "any"
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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, 11 Mar 2015 16:32:29 -0000

tl;dr:
I am thinking of the "principle of least surprise", for the use case of
interactive "dig" users.

Here's why:
Asking ANY to a recursive resolver, the expected behavior is "whatever is
in the cache" (which could be a subset of the real RRsets, and possibly
empty even though RRs exist on corresponding auth servers). No-error,
no-data in this circumstance would not be unexpected, and would not be a
cause for concern.

Asking ANY to an auth server, the expected behavior is "everything at this
node".

At 3am, when investigating a problem with a domain, if I unwittingly type
"ANY" as the type, I don't want to have to think about or remember that the
behavior changed, and that the "no-error, no-data" answer really means
"deprecated".

I would be happy if the differential behavior were "refused" or "notimpl",
in this specific corner case (RD=1, to an auth server).

Maybe that compromise is sufficient? It would still accomplish Olafur's
goal.

Brian

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:

>
>
>   Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
>  Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:13 AM
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Brian Dickson <
> brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey, everyone,
>>
> [snip]
>
>> "dig"-friendly.
>>
>
> Okay, thinking about this a bit more...
> Recursive vs authoritative, RD=0 vs RD=1.
>
> In all combinations of the above, do the "new thing", except for one
> corner case:
> if(RD==1 && I_AM_AUTHORITY) then
>   do_ANY
>
> (Which happens to be the default if someone uses "dig" against an auth
> server).
>
>
> djb doesn't want QTYPE=ANY deprecated in any form.
>
> olafur doesn't want to "do_ANY", under any conditions.
>
> so i'm baffled by why you're offering this alternative?
>
> --
> Paul Vixie
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email