Re: [DNSOP] Additional EDE codes for resource limits

Eric Orth <ericorth@google.com> Wed, 02 December 2020 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ericorth@google.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 E65A63A14F2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:06:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 5OUKMxSh8_iJ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:06:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x135.google.com (mail-lf1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::135]) (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 05CD23A1482 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:06:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x135.google.com with SMTP id d20so6907822lfe.11 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 13:06:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XnYws9L4zy7TOYIRr3+MMQeHJZLesn4twplplzZFiak=; b=nKtDtYncxTQx53O3Xc4y1Npi8uXZlGZ3yDrqcnNA0Gc+kLcbZr1hI10KtaaiZxzUIW eSxog6aLRjz6Dp5yLpxeB/J6HFwQSiGkbAm0SaBjOXuw4XX4Yy2O5OO9F4KNMLabjfaL INjj8fS3FLMKMYh/lAWBFrIi2r6XzN+BEcqO1MgleKj0wON9rVk0UqvAdQ7D9ujLh/M/ G5vTKfFZ+l/+b98lqboaGekrLHJE+UxoXxk48Ff4M84SdrSrmm8cWtXUEniDcd7ce4Ca NoRwZY69srgO2NiaKxvi2vN3sDkOpL6qFg4AKZnSOeRSwL3eGPxY+s6A43zF/Y2Ty/v0 rR/g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XnYws9L4zy7TOYIRr3+MMQeHJZLesn4twplplzZFiak=; b=j1e1ud1wzTI0oNgD8AwQkDtXa7oRK9HkzSsfGF7c87xTqzTiLXKklXnOSC3BuVpl0i rhEEZZZ3m7arAjSMqYyHXyyVc/DtSvSjVYzaJaF5Ri0P0uM/T/OiXm3wAVDvwV5/nWTg wPYeiSl+JZ/WNEBIYMZNmxiednBB3S36S+Zg98pYOhAVwGoO2GJsbAMUPTeUvXDQgFhE GjPzRKrnVY1joKN1GtERWp1PpryjGSn8i27rHZgdvgJU1M/Pq9v0JBTHf9rTHB3b9M+B TxRFWk/7ilEplQxMMXfYHaaQ4JcuMSianCo/Dxnmo3hqIeDkSsb2rqgg0zKFo6TOuIqc ricw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531CY5EUz9a5zfTQ0BbRBTQCC+Fi7nKnGfDkOpNwyXqCt8okMcjO qUoaY6UAoMo2o+QgrLhRnDPiZ3TLi3R5tFtz1H0fH7ZNLx0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzu+00aKP6Qn1RR5c7JILt7gaZasmW3TBuSU7a22udA320PAANc5VRBwJ8fr55KwuF1PH9GTycKd+zGDorNntU=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:4b48:: with SMTP id y69mr2030836lfa.576.1606943171991; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 13:06:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <19129a4c-7aab-1c81-2a6e-e382479851c1@nic.cz> <yblsg8o5acc.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
In-Reply-To: <yblsg8o5acc.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
From: Eric Orth <ericorth@google.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 16:06:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMOjQcFM9qx6DwGr1U_9ES-yK7esCPPursu9Rgo+FKOssHoX8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
Cc: "libor.peltan" <libor.peltan@nic.cz>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f1420f05b5819c03"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/SLprLm3mFtatKbpUBFWyKBq_DD0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Additional EDE codes for resource limits
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: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 21:06:16 -0000

Is it common for a resolver to still want to return DNS responses in these
low-resources or rate-limited cases? My uninformed guess would be that
these errors are more often a transport-level issue, rather than an
application issue appropriate to communicate within DNS messages.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 1:56 PM Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:

> "libor.peltan" <libor.peltan@nic.cz> writes:
>
> I'm trying to think about when these would be included and what would be
> in the rest of the response.
>
> > 1) it lacks resources
>
> So, with this one it would return something like REFUSED quickly without
> doing the search for data and just say "I'm overwhelmed, try again
> later" essentially?
>
> > 2) rate-limiting was applied
>
> So this would be used in the common RRL case, where information would be
> left out and the TC bit was set?  IE, the EDE code would indicate that
> RRL had been hit; that makes some sense.
>
> --
> Wes Hardaker
> USC/ISI
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>