Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 29 November 2017 01:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 2490B127076 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:53:07 -0800 (PST)
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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=Xjmu7cb+; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=DYdgSE1o
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 mNhajJgYtbdj for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:53:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF8EA126E7A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67FECC06D0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 01:53:05 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1511920385; bh=PcXJjAy1H91tLZ48a7BuZ1YnaxnxkBdqPu79JoR6mLE=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Xjmu7cb+Ec+zLPYnISkYmKaAz2sm7PbhUZqJVGQs3MjaTzFSXnPjIFY/l+3FbG0KQ p+Edlcx+OFPw3MBDI9czrXSGd+xWtSNY6IXZwcSUDiuL+PZ4o+Sb5c5ds56mFeAXNs VUvCSot2AeilMyZY9KWOBnf4goUL6w2JmQk/gaWc=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4CNowsjIwmey for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 01:53:04 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 20:53:03 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1511920384; bh=PcXJjAy1H91tLZ48a7BuZ1YnaxnxkBdqPu79JoR6mLE=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=DYdgSE1oVy3yzya5QaSN/fgSR0D0xldDprUxXTFrQ6MfmYDTdyLSiPTn1P5m62nq4 WeQQPpBsq0c7rTPyNbncyzcPwfH4fpfYnsvrXddqUdjMJqajZ8m/rTY3C/fJOAEW8f impnWrWpdokanKRW0W6vphkq+INa3DcmohLdmDQE=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171129015303.kthpahbi6w6m645d@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <20171112075445.tf2ut5dxzhhnqe7l@mx4.yitter.info> <20171128195025.ifzwsjk42wz7ard6@mx4.yitter.info> <FAA4A6D6-1454-4705-B87F-1FB96CC50658@isc.org> <20171129014436.sx546yjwvobepnyp@mx4.yitter.info> <8E36C30A-A7BC-4908-BE06-6D2B8B469006@isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8E36C30A-A7BC-4908-BE06-6D2B8B469006@isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/UDbNToa-h-O1mt00MwggA9Q4vHk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 01:53:07 -0000

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:46:07PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> GO READ STD13!

I thought I had, and I thought indeed that I was quoting it to you (or
at least making references).

I _suspect_ that you're referring to 4.1.1 in 1035 which describes AA.
But that says that it "that the responding name server is an authority
for the domain name in question section."  This does not seem to me to
line up clearly with the cases called a "referral" in 1034.

I'm not trying to be religious about this or claim that I have the
right answer.  I'm just trying to write down the historical lore, so
that future people don't have to be this bored again.

Thanks,

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com