[DNSOP] question regarding draft-ietf-dnsop-aname: aname section & truncation
Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de> Fri, 31 May 2019 11:13 UTC
Return-Path: <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
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 2C5B412008B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2019 04:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] 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 bBxjHpGDMlqg for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2019 04:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kmx5b.knipp.de (kmx5b.knipp.de [IPv6:2a01:5b0:0:29::6a]) (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 6CA27120019 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2019 04:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx5b.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209EE3001BF; Fri, 31 May 2019 11:13:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [195.253.2.27] (mclane.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.27]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D95A6CD9; Fri, 31 May 2019 13:13:24 +0200 (MESZ)
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Message-ID: <3a213a87-7c98-268e-e904-9255b6c32e6a@knipp.de>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 13:13:00 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:69.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/69.0a1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spamd-Bar: /
Authentication-Results: kmx5b.knipp.de; none
X-Rspamd-Server: s671
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 209EE3001BF
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; IP_WHITELIST(0.00)[195.253.2.54]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8391, ipnet:195.253.0.0/16, country:DE]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/R-Dv3utLyJc29YH2x7rv92QePqQ>
Subject: [DNSOP] question regarding draft-ietf-dnsop-aname: aname section & truncation
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: Fri, 31 May 2019 11:13:59 -0000
Hi all, thanks for answering my recent questions so far, but I have to bother you with another (maybe stupid?) issue. I saw that for regular address queries, you moved the ANAME record from the "answer" section to the "additional" section in the -02 draft. I tried to figure out why, but did not find an answer in the document itself or in the github issues. This might by a problem, at least theoretically. RFC 2181, section 9, says that records may be removed from the additional section without setting the TC bit if the message would get too large otherwise. So the ANAME record could get lost in some circumstances. I have not checked whether this could occur in real, with very long query names, a lot of address records, authority records and maybe with signatures (which would allow larger responses due to the DNSSEC requirements on the other hand). Regards, Klaus
- [DNSOP] question regarding draft-ietf-dnsop-aname… Klaus Malorny
- Re: [DNSOP] question regarding draft-ietf-dnsop-a… Matthijs Mekking