IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Comment on section 2 of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05.txt

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 29 September 2016 11:45 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 DBF7C127071 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 04:45:47 -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] 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 tWGFKyEoyfxH for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 04:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) (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 5CD0812B506 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 04:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id CDEF931D6A; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:45:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by godin (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9BE3EEC0B75; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:43:23 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:43:23 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
Message-ID: <20160929114323.GA21265@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <29B4A430-80C7-44C8-A6FA-54A1560D3FD7@icann.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <29B4A430-80C7-44C8-A6FA-54A1560D3FD7@icann.org>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 16.04 (xenial)
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/NfJRSnUMBUy0mrrh5U1JseB4dco>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Comment on section 2 of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 29 Sep 2016 11:45:48 -0000

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 05:42:31PM +0000,
 Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> wrote 
 a message of 92 lines which said:

> For consistency, the SHOULD's in the first paragraph ought to be
> MAY's.

Process-wise, I don't think it is reasonable to ask for a change in
RFC2119 terms after the Working Group Last Call *and* the IESG
approval. Otherwise, no work will ever be finished.

In the technical side, see the answers by Shumon Huque.

> As the authority server may change its version of a zone and the SOA
> (with serial) is not in every response, it's impossible
> (computationally undecidable) to know whether the answer with the
> NXDOMAIN was created before or after lower data.  Maybe the lower
> data is "currently correct" and the NXDOMAIN is stale-ish.  Or not.

As Mark Andrews say, this is a very old DNS issue. Nothing new here,
no new text required.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email