Re: [DNSOP] draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-01.txt

Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com> Tue, 14 July 2015 02:01 UTC

Return-Path: <shuque@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31BC1A8903 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 lpZ9uN7rThy9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22d.google.com (mail-qg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 288791A8901 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgep37 with SMTP id p37so73366995qge.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=2p3p4LxYxIoKGIbKhkJJC5jSPp115Wj6Oj2n1xnLAKY=; b=KFWmRUt9uxCT7OL7GdfNOCLmgENL2fdFe6zgbHsMEQlcU4uxLtsibREpjv58/OzNHw SmYY3cC4lSaX4eg9Mrp2/wHcxcrrfDxeY2y8fXZAzi00x4Y18UWsdhub4Mq87oNb3YX2 +k6Ps4/36v2MB41mqskTs1FV0xvWZFF/IlsQQV7tSskID2jAJhSNQTZ3Jr6Qw7NjeQJE hmDZ7n/WGKFuuEWiEBXoVFNYfiz7XEL/eu6QM8PaoPcLiT/T9REhHZSN4SWzVxh4Qorx KwtIYTQtKoF/4Jlg9VemsiHZZSiy6BjQbJkB/NZP2qlfUVnRJxLfegqNSguJ5cb1G0ly KjEQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.232.206 with SMTP id d197mr28606026qhc.18.1436839289443; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.80.208 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqcRQH0WGTaLqtMSuiOty4KHe9nN6T-wmqf3x_ohuA6TcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150310.191541.52184726.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> <20150707.182043.193693838.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> <CAJE_bqcRQH0WGTaLqtMSuiOty4KHe9nN6T-wmqf3x_ohuA6TcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:01:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHPuVdU-1e_7KPH9JdSvbPn-tYptaXbHrQvQz=UEv+QJdseJxw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113549d6725cb0051acc37d9"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Q3FpcQONPy2SApucDDUYXiXnVJc>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: shuque@gmail.com
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, 14 Jul 2015 02:01:32 -0000

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 2:53 PM, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 2:20 AM,  <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> wrote:
> [...]
> In Introduction it states:
>
>    While negative (non-existence) information of DNS caching mechanism
>    has been known as DNS negative cache [RFC2308], it requires exact
>    matching in most cases.  [...]
>    This was because the NXDOMAIN response just says
>    there is no such name "a.example.com" and it doesn't tell anything
>    for "b.example.com".
>
> While I see what it tries to say and don't disagree with it, I think
> this is not very accurate.  In fact, NXDOMAIN for "a.example.com" says
> there is no such name *or any subdomain of it*.  So it would still be
> usable to suppress unnecessary external query for, e.g.,
> foo.a.example.com.
>

That's indeed the literal meaning of NXDOMAIN, but it turns out most
current resolver implementations don't treat it that way. The wording in
RFC2308, Section 5 is not entirely precise, but it seems to say that
negative answers should be cached only for the exact qname, and not
(necessarily) for anything below it.

Section 3 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vixie-dnsext-resimprove-00
("Stopping Downward Cache Search on NXDOMAIN") proposed to fix this
resolver behavior. It would be great if this was standardized and adopted.

Regarding Section 5 (possible side effect on root servers), I wonder
> about the implication of qname-minimization (which I expect will be
> deployed much sooner than this proposal).  A resolver that supports
> qname-minimization would first send a query to "local." to the root
> server upon receiving a "foo.local" query, and cache the result of
> NXDOMAIN for "local.".  It will suppress subsequent external queries
> for any subdomain of it.
>

Yes, this will certainly be a very beneficial result of qname minimization.

Shumon.