Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 19 May 2020 00:37 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 0F9683A0D95 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2020 17:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=p1vvYxoI; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=WZKKroi3
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 BmP-Tp4vTu88 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2020 17:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 784B13A0D91 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2020 17:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 41915 invoked from network); 19 May 2020 00:37:01 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=a3b9.5ec32a2d.k2005; bh=9KHpOrli5U4YoKRustPgc8F0Asy1FB9u8hTHoPTrNLk=; b=p1vvYxoIwxtxYSxM5fZIC3jXRmECf8plIpNKVy9cb91gsNHUazk3EEB4EryKTO26q/2DPJ3+++wr0Kep/5R8ueq7Haneblqi+RgMxgMgfUb3kpUtko7q6YJWCpnaPkeiZDrvUYaf4P2/ix93Sv4c2lDkrDwo9QH/VeK9unVgVEnTVgq26rB+t0sztwJSVYcSdDwjNWQ6nF2MtNbzspfKDuQ4pVuB2A/h+D1Ypyp4bZYfJOS9xZszfwbWmLWN8K6u
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=a3b9.5ec32a2d.k2005; bh=9KHpOrli5U4YoKRustPgc8F0Asy1FB9u8hTHoPTrNLk=; b=WZKKroi3K5kRqA8zSvITotfyn7l10ymMMd8rhl7hBzoXNdz2ZO6V00EpLRN/5Uah+rjwE26vrRTTuIxsZ/FdA0YcrwHC9W6vtSx1pbwGaHPga0WqAECkexb4NMcADUOX00nOH6sJ0QE/8R6eZfqVc4MR4rHoswebxRLGXV/Dn4BtzebY1kZlMzitT2ens3bTp7p7NlxImVEADE2D0qrmAXe/wogazLXkErZaIRrz71EB+ugotidYh5MYrUzZUyEp
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 19 May 2020 00:37:01 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 05FD119711F6; Mon, 18 May 2020 20:37:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 18 May 2020 20:37:00 -0400
Message-Id: <20200519003701.05FD119711F6@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: paul@nohats.ca
In-Reply-To: <F4F41481-C2A7-4FDF-AF76-65C36AB23976@nohats.ca>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/PHkmT5nzWPrkYRgPpzfeHK8rRyY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 19 May 2020 00:37:05 -0000

In article <F4F41481-C2A7-4FDF-AF76-65C36AB23976@nohats.ca> you write:
>Not convinced the situation should be this black and white - eg perhaps partial glue would be enough
>not to require TC=1 or behaviour for resolvers could be a little more advanced to try with partial
>before going to TCP.
>
>If my request seem stupid, the draft needs clarification for stupid people like me :)

The draft, which I hope we adopt, could use clarification if that
seems like a good idea.

Imagine you have foo.example with two nameservers, ns1.foo.example and
ns2.foo.example. Client looks up something.foo.example, server returns
a referral with two NS records but only has room for one A record for
ns1. The Internet is having a bad day and ns1 is unreachable while ns2
is fine. Since there's no TC=1 the client has no idea that requerying
would return the A record for ns2, so it wrongly assumes ns2 has no A
record and the domain is kaput. It can't separately requery for ns2,
since who would it ask?

It's fine to return a partial result with TC=1, that's always been the case.

R's,
John