IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-00

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Mon, 30 November 2015 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@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 ECE761B2B78 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:25:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 FUrAe3M6DwKl for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:25:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x235.google.com (mail-io0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::235]) (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 882971B2B91 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:25:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iofh3 with SMTP id h3so185865713iof.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:25:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8AbQqcbgkBGPOsSOdz1q8mN2LIJBcwxv0n2LKy0F+vA=; b=vgz1i+1WJrOpsZyIHwgaUxYb1Mn7j5zrnPnX2KOXIxrm8+0fhnewNtQnruPJrSh2Ra 77vKHRX886MdsIfLM+NMFNogEZULgmra7xwbLFsyDN/FbTxagTmREGpwRvOXj3Po2X5C cfK4XnPqge4kTV5YVQquVSezq+aCcaZtBQCYGtQJM6oEJdB1+zd0t+OxN/cqwhm1Ef20 jGEu02oUtUT1d2q5hlroyjxGMBTsLXEqfwP1M/GsR29r/WpbIIEgAcBKcYAuicrvkL7T HQ7KoO80wn2FJT9l2kOaxGDqhRdZ6lP+FwbajAbizftnp7iOHiP3a7hMSWKm8b2zOXec 2M1g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.137.222 with SMTP id t91mr66814932ioi.172.1448911543976; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:25:43 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.47.217 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:25:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20151129141628.GA8193@sources.org>
References: <CAJE_bqe98gi0FHAhiug7w9HCrat_m4LpByqDuy=7m9afGiroug@mail.gmail.com> <20151122135234.GA1475@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <CAJE_bqcZnzAd0iuvfTvberU9LxEfeEHhZhDdpJQQpNb7qaQfdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHPuVdVB2LBfrYMOzZdPPxk6MdQE-ZLq4+M-XcyRrR3_8b2PKg@mail.gmail.com> <20151129141628.GA8193@sources.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:25:43 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: AWWnDGUV2ZPg2nVC3Qxdm78T_ls
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqfdMAMzw2QBjd51m82F3ujKUy+_nMD868dtT80t_5Vw5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Qx0xdvHvvq83QaM5v4xowzkQFgI>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-00
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:25:46 -0000

At Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:16:28 +0100,
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:

> > > That was exactly my point, and in that sense I'd say "SHOULD
> > > delete" is redundant (and possibly imposes unnecessary
> > > restrictions on implementations).
> >
> > Yes, I agree. The current description is a bit too implementation specific.
>
> My concern is that some implementations may have a cache composed of a
> tree structure *plus* a hashed index for speed. When receiving a
> query whose answer is in the cache, such implementation may not
> perform a "downward search" in the cache.
>
> May be something like: "After the reception of a NXDOMAIN answer for a
> given name, the resolver SHOULD/MUST? reply NXDOMAIN for every name
> under the denied name." (There are details, such as TTL and such as
> RFC 6604, see the draft for these.)
>
> That way, we just specify a behaviour, with zero implementation
> detail.

Yes, this will address my point perfectly.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email