IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-03.txt

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Sat, 16 March 2024 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
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 6FB6DC14F721 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.66
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 116i8shj6zgs for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ayla.bortzmeyer.org (ayla.bortzmeyer.org [92.243.4.211]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67E65C14F71D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ayla.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id D1292A012D; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:11:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: by smoking.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 708321BA22BB; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:10:37 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:10:37 +1000
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <ZfYm7RLbACjJHFhk@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <170959055561.39905.2007482768877029325@ietfa.amsl.com> <ZfVO6R2YAmbr88Jb@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <CAHPuVdUw6axvF4Gnm+Pcrf40Q1G6QE60DqXPkSpEbYYZ2bB7xw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHPuVdUw6axvF4Gnm+Pcrf40Q1G6QE60DqXPkSpEbYYZ2bB7xw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 22.04 (jammy)
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/MxloZkXMB9ynoNoK5ORxuL8sLTs>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:11:41 -0000

On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 01:27:00PM -0700,
 Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 236 lines which said:

> > * is there an EDE which is recommended when replying to an
> > explicit request for a meta-type (like QTYPE=NXNAME)? 
> 
> It doesn't, but could. I don't see an obviously applicable EDE code that
> covers this (apart from the catch-all "Other Error"), so perhaps we could
> define a new one, "Invalid Query Type"?

Currently, I use 18, Prohibited, which is not perfect.

> One current implementation does not differentiate DO=0 vs 1 and gives the
> same NODATA answer for both cases.

Yes. I see no practical problem with that but, from a philosophical
point of view, it disturbs me. Naive clients may make wrong
conclusions from the NODATA answer.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email