Re: [DNSOP] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: (with COMMENT)

Ólafur Guðmundsson <olafur@cloudflare.com> Wed, 12 September 2018 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <olafur@cloudflare.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 9C95C130F44 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.031
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.031 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cloudflare.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 ip7Fv2WoBux2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x433.google.com (mail-wr1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) (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 8EA20130F5B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x433.google.com with SMTP id a108-v6so3511080wrc.13 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EP+Kll/7k8aMnt1nFGmBOxrrnNFPidyPxHJcqssJXpQ=; b=FLtSwMr5OING14Dl/ZxyqgQzF+OFtKtipJ4jnF0lnTqqhI/kqfu/gSg2qigmyQDSWM MVw/Ypec8p1ftLU7gn0wWvtEa99Gy6Loe4rUO/XFJO2X8uSwZ2z188Q3zILhpM+ux3cc jjafwuVP/gQFSi4XjJOWk2KtmBe13iyaNKejc=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EP+Kll/7k8aMnt1nFGmBOxrrnNFPidyPxHJcqssJXpQ=; b=TMjV9Xpkq+BNU20ttHKm+Ro4WCyJx3YRSHZJETiIsrfD0x5uESqQnGxTq84enl97LU DRkGrOTBIL2cVi7fqQeH/ItgC7ySEt/3rB5aupm5nYzeBBZfFYd8hrZbqFft6kcNQKpm 8wZIZxkCEdf2mn1WjGbYys8LCtnR4NB35gyFmaNA2yORpdT0FTy1UiaDQWSd2ZPfiTmS Ks2/Fks7rNjx6CWRLI5rovHt0X+FOSb6nz3e3h9nqZXpbvwN9RHO4+vP6//2Q79fNaEo po6l0JBYHqDwSoyXMSvLVzSpeixoEMw+GkKfUWIUypBFfTZGBzyOhuiiPaMmWGY6z4QB xN5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BBJd5tlerdw65UwQrEK1vGXeVjMwoty4aktb3Ax2niPNt1R4ZV VNtAQlqpxlR5g27L/cFfmsxYXBIZJlSbg0IxwJDcEg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZb1lFlrCwrvlzweazL7saxATH7iu9HqLaP4plfKqPgxLaPMIBNZu+P4LrcjLj2PyWwOc8++5LpcCPesd6xyog=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:68c9:: with SMTP id p9-v6mr3025795wrw.108.1536788269868; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:adf:e451:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <153678332662.9488.1161578958244899377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <153678332662.9488.1161578958244899377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?w5NsYWZ1ciBHdcOwbXVuZHNzb24=?= <olafur@cloudflare.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:37:49 +1100
Message-ID: <CAN6NTqyS9E0W0AWKTT4-uxp5GNNeFt=PS+vDpiwc2mJUcfCaUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any@ietf.org, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, dnsop-chairs <dnsop-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ebcbe40575b36607"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/UGLVewMLzs7VZA8zCvvNi9JNAss>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: (with COMMENT)
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, 12 Sep 2018 21:38:09 -0000

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:

> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Rich version of this review at:
> https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D5482
>
>
>
> COMMENTS
> S 3.
> >      processing in order to send a conventional ANY response, and
> avoiding
> >      that processing expense might be desirable.
> >
> >   3.  General Approach
> >
> >      This proposal provides a mechanism for an authority server to signal
>
> Nit: authoritative.
>
> Noted,


>
> S 4.3.
> >      applications may be satisfied by this behaviour, the resulting
> >      responses in the general case are larger than the approaches
> >      described in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2.
> >
> >      As before, if the zone is signed and the DO bit is set on the
> >      corresponding query, an RRSIG RRSet MUST be included in the
> response.
>
> This section seems to be one possible algorithm for implementing 4.1.
> What am I missing?
>
> The difference is this approach will frequently return more and larger
answers than 4.1
but you are right 4.3 is an expansion of 4.1



> S 7.
> >      It is important to note that returning a subset of available RRSets
> >      when processing an ANY query is legitimate and consistent with
> >      [RFC1035]; it can be argued that ANY does not always mean ALL, as
> >      used in section 3.2.3 of [RFC1035].  The main difference here is
> that
> >      the TC bit SHOULD NOT be set on the response indicating that this is
> >      not a complete answer.
>
> This is a bit grammatically awkward, perhaps "response, thus
> indicating"
>
>
> Sounds good
 thanks



-- 
Ólafur Gudmundsson | Engineering Director
www.cloudflare.com blog.cloudflare.com