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

[Ólafur Guðmundsson <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> 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