Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Paul Vixie <> Mon, 13 November 2017 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B0C129B06 for <>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g648ajgE2mX3 for <>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54DE5120454 for <>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:dc3:59e3:1fa5:69dc] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:dc3:59e3:1fa5:69dc]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D0B361FA2; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:14:14 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:14:14 -0800
From: Paul Vixie <>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.20 (Windows/20171012)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Sullivan <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:14:17 -0000

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi,
> This is quite a helpful response, thanks.  I wonder whether more of it
> ought to go in discussion (or a new draft), however.

i probably should not be involved in a new draft other than as a 
reviewer. (consider the fate of resimprove.)

> For I'm struck
> by this:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 06:42:18PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
>>> always be generated using only local data, and either contains the
>>> answer to the question or a referral to other name servers "closer" to
>>> the desired information.
>> the operative phrase is '"closer" to'. this is repeated in 4.3.1:
> If I ask the authoritative server for about a name
>, in a graph-theoretic sense the NS RRset for the
> root zone is clearly closer to than anything else I
> can give.

dns is not that kind of graph.

if the qname is and the query is being processed by 
the authority server who knows that is a delegation, 
then is closer to than the root would be.

> The current approaches that people have for this are either NODATA
> responses and REFUSED.  Only the latter seems obviously consistent
> with the text, though I'm aware that there's controversy over using
> REFUSED here.

as i wrote during the SOPA wars, REFUSED has been widely used as an 
administrative denial, and repurposing it would not be effective at this 
late date.


P Vixie