IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any and DO=0

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Sun, 07 February 2016 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
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 B63E71B3B37 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2016 06:16:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 AYXTjIq0GoEI for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2016 06:16:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13B591B3B36 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Feb 2016 06:16:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:37489) by ppsw-43.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1aSQ8N-0004sO-pQ (Exim 4.86_36-e07b163) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Sun, 07 Feb 2016 14:16:15 +0000
Received: from fanf2 by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local id 1aSQ8N-00013l-Tw (Exim 4.72) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Sun, 07 Feb 2016 14:16:15 +0000
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2016 14:16:15 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1602052158390.7000@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1602071411270.2469@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1602052158390.7000@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/UM2_p95vFqU1ZqBlX53K5jvD1oI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any and DO=0
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: <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: Sun, 07 Feb 2016 14:16:19 -0000

Another question:

In order to minimize responses even further, I have made my code omit or
include signature records depending on whether DO=0 or DO=1. That is, and
ANY query with DO=0 gets one arbitrary unsigned RRset in response, and an
ANY query with DO=1 gets one arbitrary signed RRset.

Is this sensible, and if do should it be suggested by the draft?

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Fair Isle: Southerly becoming cyclonic 5 to 7, occasionally gale 8 at first in
east. Rough or very rough. Rain or showers. Good, occasionally poor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email