IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-00.txt

Ólafur Guðmundsson <olafur@cloudflare.com> Sun, 04 October 2015 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <olafur@cloudflare.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 8849A1B2A55 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.078
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 Ww71poafCsaw for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (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 7E2ED1B2A54 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iow1 with SMTP id 1so126622821iow.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 08:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=6Q647PMLOuKR171T4IOznEotgsdESE0X1cgXk1pOwoM=; b=cSIdT/TKKp7fa10QPQZ3iK/FeDFyZ4+ZdnS9r4nMk0foMUp4YmL2MbVRgBguvp21IH 6gLTTIC5EvGtTeL72IQmiaIOOtbF6UWsgwgjYk8nlSWMDfqTEpvcbFQafsRxeDuXxPM6 YnJStOx6FrKnrqrUiJl281n5JFg97eBKvvN4g=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6Q647PMLOuKR171T4IOznEotgsdESE0X1cgXk1pOwoM=; b=KJ/yhjlu+TZkVEUSKnIg2lORL6Ccb05vC6HLyEXJTzYM6cSkNlfCMrDAySIJhW/rM4 bMjvTe8dpxyg+xaCu7RxAjUZxwftr9YLbtYwrKSoXiO/cbqeqQr5NvJame1/pn8H65mX 6HxoloONBR3M5J7G7woUgmkt4TggB11U3jqmTkP/6ho4Lr3S8onV/b+9U/Frzuuv0kIi x94G7rbj6vGbQTvdg7IdHZIl4pu7bPvWQ+MpwKr3IYTqSlsbD78IuZlEMui0t9f3OZmT tdBk1BfMWDuRjhaI2seziJ70eotz8eXfMfS2gfsjTV7LepyY7ZbEtc4Rk5fJhjieqPy8 m2uw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlNjudV5RUDtbIxOFdpyPxiNZWYAQtg4vqrjFHkFY8r1pgcwH2ddvfDuMn+tH7bKDsC02sy
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.128.145 with SMTP id k17mr28486570ioi.24.1443974223688; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 08:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.16.29 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <22033.14483.72522.295726@gro.dd.org>
References: <20150930190405.17300.40441.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20151001050850.GA51763@isc.org> <22033.14483.72522.295726@gro.dd.org>
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 08:57:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAN6NTqxTA5Zo-tFS3TkQ4V08BZq_UyRN4ZQ_=KNoB0uRnCTWwg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ólafur Guðmundsson <olafur@cloudflare.com>
To: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113fbcc6ab2426052149721a"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/I_9RSJAXBxlnsEEV9rOS4UcUzQs>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-00.txt
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, 04 Oct 2015 15:57:05 -0000

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> wrote:

> A couple of quick observations:
>
> * The draft says that the answer in a signed zone MAY be unsigned.
>   Since this will ultimately cause a SERVFAIL for validating
>   resolvers, it is not really acceptable.
>

You and Evan,
 are right we will update the document to reflect this, as returning
unsigned answers is only
accepted by non-validating resolvers and figuring out if resolver is
validating requires tracking resolver behavior
thus it is simpler and cheaper to sign.
Servers with Off-line signed zones have more to gain from this
functionality.


>
> * The draft does not describe at all what the proper behaviour is for
>   an owner name that has a CNAME record.  Since CNAMEs require special
>   handling, this should be addressed.  Personally I think the CNAME
>   should be returned in this case.
>
> good point, we will address it

Olafur

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email