IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-00

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Sun, 29 November 2015 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 E32C61AD071 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 06:18:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 ZcfVMi4hrrND for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 06:18:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) (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 DDF211AD06E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 06:18:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 7FA4F3BBA4; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:18:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7FF74C9C11; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:16:28 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:16:28 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20151129141628.GA8193@sources.org>
References: <CAJE_bqe98gi0FHAhiug7w9HCrat_m4LpByqDuy=7m9afGiroug@mail.gmail.com> <20151122135234.GA1475@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <CAJE_bqcZnzAd0iuvfTvberU9LxEfeEHhZhDdpJQQpNb7qaQfdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHPuVdVB2LBfrYMOzZdPPxk6MdQE-ZLq4+M-XcyRrR3_8b2PKg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHPuVdVB2LBfrYMOzZdPPxk6MdQE-ZLq4+M-XcyRrR3_8b2PKg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 8.2
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/BVGWfFdZijB1L0_O3_94qJbXPpc>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-00
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: <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, 29 Nov 2015 14:18:09 -0000

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 05:39:04AM -0500,
 Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 234 lines which said:

> > That was exactly my point, and in that sense I'd say "SHOULD
> > delete" is redundant (and possibly imposes unnecessary
> > restrictions on implementations).
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree. The current description is a bit too implementation specific.

My concern is that some implementations may have a cache composed of a
tree structure *plus* a hashed index for speed. When receiving a
query whose answer is in the cache, such implementation may not
perform a "downward search" in the cache.

May be something like: "After the reception of a NXDOMAIN answer for a
given name, the resolver SHOULD/MUST? reply NXDOMAIN for every name
under the denied name." (There are details, such as TTL and such as
RFC 6604, see the draft for these.)

That way, we just specify a behaviour, with zero implementation
detail.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email