Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Andrew Sullivan <> Wed, 29 November 2017 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57938129329 for <>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:47:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=IIGlCZ0N; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=dnxPKBBw
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GBp-vZ2S8-rm for <>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:47:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA99B1293E0 for <>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:47:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518F9C06D0 for <>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 01:47:50 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1511920070; bh=t0EMAUST7/zLOXHW9uscCFBXmqg5j4i6BDp/gN4UCcY=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=IIGlCZ0N2X6VhsCqXKYJb4wF5wtWxzTneebOKWqCOjsIRJm4s64+uKwa1Uwdy7IRG toc1SOwgzSa1CiCnDOC01G9tBYLHQyN5S2UQTBMP9LS4XzKPeO7rkJzQ0/anYghoZ4 uWzcnc2Fen28mYZee55LwWVEB5XJlo3PKeN5/eLM=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vesKsrAgzehl for <>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 01:47:49 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 20:47:48 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1511920069; bh=t0EMAUST7/zLOXHW9uscCFBXmqg5j4i6BDp/gN4UCcY=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=dnxPKBBwgOVs92m0kbei8mk6MDoTbioraqzyw+scGJcr0b1VGzfN00rEknjt/p8IQ jUyy+eNBpnITSWUZTv/oPhvf1GNk328YWpOeVksDN0coNbiPgpTvzEGcBxu7ggd9YI uhvmCDGGrcmrCuSyFTqNOG1xGMJ4DqF6Je/oBqUg=
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 01:47:56 -0000

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 03:18:57PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:

> what would "to work" mean in the above text?

"Not strictly speaking required to work" was intended to observe that,
if you didn't get a referral under this condition, nothing ought to
break (or, if it did, it was already broken).  The point is in
contrast to the downward referrals case, which _must_ work or
delegation doesn't.  I'm nervous about someone running off saying,
"IETF says referrals don't work," which is clearly not the point.

> that an upward referral could "work" in the above-reference sense seems to
> imply that the authority server you've queried, knows more about where the
> zone really is, than you could learn by walking down from the root. that's a
> walking talking nonsequitur. could you tell me what you really mean by "to
> work" since it can't possibly be that?

Indeed, it is not that.  Suggestions on how to make this clearer are


Andrew Sullivan