Re: [DNSOP] opportunistic semi-authoritative caching (Re: DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale)

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Sat, 09 September 2017 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 9C581132932 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Sep 2017 08:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 6Vx18tc_svHY for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Sep 2017 08:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9D62132339 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Sep 2017 08:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.31.98.12] (23-24-118-27-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [23.24.118.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC87961FA2; Sat, 9 Sep 2017 15:29:30 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <59B408D8.1050608@redbarn.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2017 08:29:28 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.19 (Windows/20170908)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
CC: dnsop@ietf.org, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
References: <59B1F467.9010308@redbarn.org> <FAC87A99-5558-4369-ADC0-57E2B7BF0429@hopcount.ca> <8183111.Lxug4lBFgO@localhost.localdomain> <20170909003248.GD44967@isc.org> <59B34758.8020105@redbarn.org> <20170909024918.GA48842@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170909024918.GA48842@isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/SUzqTBdbN1XMxHBw0_hRdIWgKKU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] opportunistic semi-authoritative caching (Re: DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 09 Sep 2017 15:29:33 -0000


Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 06:43:52PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> not so fast. nxdomain redirection is an attack. censorship is an attack.
>> i don't think you mean to group ttl stretching in with those attacks.
>> because if you do, then we agree, it is an attack, and ought not be
>> done, and certainly ought not be standardized in any form.
>
> They're both lies, and TTL stretching is a lie, and in principle I
> believe the DNS should not lie, but filter-aaaa and dns64 and RPZ all
> had good and worthy reasons, and nxdomain redirection had bad reasons
> with dollar signs next to them, and here we are.
>
> Just as with RPZ, it seems reasonable to publish guidance on how to
> do the kind-of-bad thing in the least bad way.

rpz is a defense. it assumes that the content owner is trying to hurt 
me. it is therefore one step away from being an attack, and is in any 
case, not an attack.

i think that attack-p is more relevant than lie-p for this discussion.

-- 
P Vixie