IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wreck problem draft-dashevskyi-dnsrr-antipatterns

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Fri, 16 April 2021 08:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 2159F3A1BE3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 01:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=portfast.net
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 OAOW_y5zYvxx for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 01:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.portfast.net (mail.portfast.net [IPv6:2a03:9800:20:1::2]) (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 6C4213A1BDF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 01:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=portfast.net; s=dkim; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=D0CMVQTOIN58ODq4FmwWorx1yfbxF1B44r+4CZmp+qg=; b=TTnc+EewjZiuaWopSv6HVOsYph 01Ad5sBW5mqOaWqMFo5vl94RaxuMTQazjYEKirhc1ykPwT1hOhn/SD9c9Wwb2+/GLEukrqs1/3z4U eyV0j3z6uySs1hkU1dVHyl9AFjYa3PD1AxCkfnwImdpWh3WJMzF3Y4I8mqV9OzYJTKHg=;
Received: from 216-213-183-57.customer.gigaclear.net ([216.213.183.57]:49384 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by mail.portfast.net ([188.246.200.9]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1lXJga-00056h-Gq (Exim 4.89) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:18:44 +0100
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20210414090142.GA12570@nic.fr> <20210414091905.GB12570@nic.fr>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <b341442d-cf12-1b7e-dfc0-a2b7afb77bd3@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:18:44 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210414091905.GB12570@nic.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/G9TEwXmF0ZHuU4HZ25HzToD1lRo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wreck problem draft-dashevskyi-dnsrr-antipatterns
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: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:18:52 -0000


On 14/04/2021 10:19, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> Regarding dnsop work, the same report suggests to modify RFC 5625 "DNS
> Proxy Implementation Guidelines" to replace the MAY in section 6.3 by
> a MUST. I think that the reason there is currently a MAY is not
> because RFC 5625 finds invalid compression pointers acceptable but
> simply because some proxies may not perform a full parsing of the RR
> in the sections.

Yes, that was pretty much it.

Many DNS proxies / ALGs don't inspect the packet contents at all, so a
stronger generic requirement was not feasible.

(The suggested SERVFAIL response is wrong, I think.  It should've been
FORMERR)

Ray

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email