IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303-01

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 21 August 2014 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 27BDF1A6FBB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 TmWHpuYelm-s for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 028A31A6F70 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [50.189.173.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE3188A031 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 01:21:07 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:21:00 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140821012100.GC2837@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <20140814001610.3124D1CC688D@rock.dv.isc.org> <86AC48C0-4DFF-4286-A9B1-2A6BE3D14BDC@hopcount.ca> <20140814160453.1C7931CCE03D@rock.dv.isc.org> <7EA38D42-3915-403E-AFE3-C0A8E4A391BF@hopcount.ca> <Prayer.1.3.5.1408201750020.12368@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <19AE3CB3-B108-42CB-BAE2-A2F1FBB55EF4@hopcount.ca> <20140820214845.70AEA1D1A20E@rock.dv.isc.org> <E4AD7D21-995C-46B1-813E-70CA0919F6CE@hopcount.ca> <20140820235118.E952B1D1B042@rock.dv.isc.org> <20140821005246.E3C7D1D1B8C8@rock.dv.isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140821005246.E3C7D1D1B8C8@rock.dv.isc.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/SqcFjNbmSslG5n450tfxsh9WlCE
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303-01
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 01:21:10 -0000

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:52:46AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> It was also a required step as you can't reliably
> validate in the client unless the recursive server has filtered out
> the spoofed answers.

If I understand you correctly, this devolves to the claim that the
validating client has to do its own recursion, lest it trut something
without basis.  Is that what you're suggesting?  I'm not opposed, but
let us be clear.

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status