Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 01 February 2018 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 9EDC812EB21 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 06:41:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 2B8MTplTkWmx for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 06:41:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130]) (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 DC11F12DB6F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 06:41:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:34330) by ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.136]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1ehG3l-0010I6-do (Exim 4.90) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 01 Feb 2018 14:41:53 +0000
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 14:41:53 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
cc: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>, dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <5A7218C4.5020301@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1802011439350.12461@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <9DCE2F63-EE37-4865-B9D6-6B79BBE05593@gmail.com> <20180129155112.GC16545@mx4.yitter.info> <5A6F5CF1.4080706@redbarn.org> <CA+nkc8D7tne5SxGOUhvJqstmDa=1=RmvcHQte1byAab5dUd5sQ@mail.gmail.com> <AE634FC4-0EAF-4F54-8860-61E41284F873@fugue.com> <20180130185919.GJ19193@mx4.yitter.info> <3b57a486-df8e-ca57-ab89-c167cea0dcc9@bellis.me.uk> <5A7218C4.5020301@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JeCsQRoMifslRPNtVORNcrzDYCw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 14:41:58 -0000

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
> Ray Bellis wrote:
> >
> > Won't that cause the resolver to cycle through every root server letter
> > hoping for one that doesn't give that answer?
>
> yes. that's what REFUSED is taken to mean, and also, why we never use it for
> data-dependent conditions. only the initiator's identity matters in the
> consideration of whether to transmit REFUSED or not.

That's not entirely true - if you are asking an authoritative-only server
then you get REFUSED or not depending on whether the QNAME is in an
authoritative zone.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
Malin, Hebrides: North 7 to severe gale 9, decreasing 5 or 6 later. High
becoming rough or very rough. Wintry showers. Mainly good.