Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation-02.txt

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Tue, 16 August 2022 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.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 E7214C15258D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 16:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redbarn.org
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 kb8L31e9DVbz for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 16:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from util.redbarn.org (util.redbarn.org [24.104.150.222]) (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 08353C152569 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 16:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by util.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 805C51A23D2; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 23:01:33 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=redbarn.org; s=util; t=1660690893; bh=LP+3o1eu2PB2Be7+WOSmy4XBz57zwHBjzQdPrmN6MNo=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=qj+47wpAv5OUQqKWhxRBNdMn7KUrQu4F5YlZvG8v6dXK+X+U0c1AZ0B2h6728F1yS hdnk/oMJsCzLCKXRnpWu/b4a0qjQrTd1nmCagHSEesXRGnqudvo8IPewAXoJcVVoAV O5jiheQraeJKRSxgC7C6mB393REI4N6Qj14M6NEQ=
Received: from [24.104.150.165] (dhcp-165.access.rits.tisf.net [24.104.150.165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A85C7597E; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 23:01:33 +0000 (UTC)
To: Hugo Salgado <hsalgado@nic.cl>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <164668869128.9050.17922186658317778247@ietfa.amsl.com> <YvwJ+RT8kpSxcrXH@pepino>
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <79a0b47e-0c0e-55e8-b44e-a5ffcf89b824@redbarn.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 16:01:32 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.56
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YvwJ+RT8kpSxcrXH@pepino>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/NAoHrw9YthjTN5UW0Cqx9zKxTPQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation-02.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: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 23:01:41 -0000


Hugo Salgado wrote on 2022-08-16 14:19:
> Dear authors.
> In the second paragraph of section 3 "Upgrading NS RRset Credibility"
> there is a mention of "Positive responses...", which I am not sure of
> its exact meaning. Do you mean ANSWERS>0? Or AA=1?

i think if the text were "positive responses" then your question would 
be a nonsequitur, but the actual text i see is "positive answers" which 
does indeed raise your questions.

> I'm thinking of a (broken) nameserver that responds to NSs queries with
> NXDOMAIN (but does answer to other types)[1]. Is that a positive
> response, which should be cached with an authoritative data ranking?

i think we're sending an RD=0 question to a server we think is the 
closest enclosing delegator for the zone we are revalidating, and that 
it has to answer AA=0 (because it is a delegated name) with an RRset of 
type NS, or else it's nonresponsive. i leave it to my coauthors to find 
a way using only english words to best express that constraint.

thanks.

-- 
P Vixie