IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-01.txt

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 27 October 2016 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.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 B915E129422 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 n2HaNS6XsG5v for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22f.google.com (mail-qk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22f]) (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 4D2EB129420 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id z190so53633966qkc.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Zf+rvhjliBZz6J4POggIKBC3d0k/1Pla7Yp2Jls3d6k=; b=qCEB7rdDODSRjyypzV5HxsXaZXLOnK5QZ8Bw64CwlRTcYeF8jfimB6jwXzk1C1WhBw Ph88yOvZ0Ov1pra1ag4WkFDVf7aXcwxKGm6x6kabmk/ebzSYjn62qK8FXLUzJHJweaTx 53Zt4EvNvdWa+nlk6ajyoy7COJWhuv5AEjdl+xxvv9B0KG/OpUe2n1lVsdTb4LKfq7eu zC5fjVt5RaA//WohnY4KdxCqvYhKCwiayfyC6aGqVXvIUkuZul5Xg58QMe7CCwrp0K7n IaBCTzMt3xKeoFcCwS+iIYl+PF5ksxwTqwKdI81PFEvfAWNUknCX7j0iS2XK+TorySAH Em/w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Zf+rvhjliBZz6J4POggIKBC3d0k/1Pla7Yp2Jls3d6k=; b=YfGscBYQz8Xt1bRJri9w/kK5JwoFZbCu4vgTrnngvReF9Ot9Kd+CmN2jMPReiZxRch p7sMVN8615PKsLQ/MW5SeKP4DLFQuUoIw3Kk3SQoqXli5eRYpFbSg9n+JuJ0eLCQJH7w cm0inoh9c/RbiHLJ59heNtNVTLGH/PBPqAlDN5z6c3fXJAgPDM2I+Oy7RagQlGwwK18l lRpjqUBslppVMS0dQCOxUPCgBg+1g6883sxssBFgTbx85E5hVavbsD8stLI4mSSlhc18 BfGK8/++dxy/EFiYpEfv7qY01tBhvtwtVkBO1RZBRgUSDa26jpo8RHzHborwVSOl0yUK +iyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcyXol4GGpWswVUh/8GMhLwXBc4K3ryFO79vPgUD7U+/T6LBHyeYV/XBat9YEgspVu2bf93F8jjKwTBsg==
X-Received: by 10.233.220.131 with SMTP id q125mr6971337qkf.43.1477586778391; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.54.134 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20161026145448066186130@cnnic.cn>
References: <11d1f4be.4df.157f6fc72c7.Coremail.yaojk@cnnic.cn> <CAJE_bqd8teOXgUU6uok1K11y=C=txGKYeujbK9PC797wHU9WtA@mail.gmail.com> <20161026145448066186130@cnnic.cn>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:46:17 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ohHgSfA23ETHQkKtVqff6z9GDy0
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqdZGaGmm8t3rT45OkAJobZdWmRKLk0OxWFmOvPe8O_51Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: yaojk <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Tn2hJEpkEpJjsSEk7oq6CYxveAc>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, vixie <vixie@fsi.io>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:46:21 -0000

At Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:55:49 +0800,
"Jiankang Yao" <yaojk@cnnic.cn> wrote:

> >If it's also intended to be used between recursive and
> >   authoritative, how does it handle a delegation answer?
>
> Most RRs needed to parallel query are normally located in the same zone.

That's probably true, but since this proposal is quite generic we
can't simply assume that in the description of the protocol.

> In case of that some sub-domain names are delegated, the Delegation information will be returned to the recursive server.
> the recursive server then check the sub-domain based on the Delegation information and get the answer.

I don't disagree with that as a high level observation.  But my point
in the question was that if it's supposed to work for delegation, it
should describe how it should work more clearly (specifically what
will be answered in the response from the authoritative server, and
specifically how the recursive server should react to it, etc).

> > - Should we assume SOA('s) in the authority section for negative
> >   answers?
>
> yes.

IMO things like this should also be explicitly included in the doc.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email