IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-03

william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com> Thu, 25 August 2016 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <chinese.apricot@gmail.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 9EA7212D0FF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 eJmpSP-5cwU8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x231.google.com (mail-it0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::231]) (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 3265412D825 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x231.google.com with SMTP id x131so279783981ite.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oCZ/+sEEX9mJ9nOxcjnje3DZQwTXQNFTcV464q8M+VA=; b=M8W/EAotfjfw0B9//ZcJTtCLgjF0OSF1en2qqArr7uIUOGtDc6oGhTuKZ/NfNxBqQO Qz2qs256Pc0RgMqnTLlyMeRjJbTPtoOATLdh92Kib9+iheyFVRTnd1ImoKCTiYCkpkNY +7yhP3sMkyub4B6Nw0iLWNBMUVAUm+t53/Uz5LGn1meHjLEvZIzg4I6MrCU9TgMukuBr rvPedIoid6BQof7LedpjqJKH22WX2EAUHj7pxin6QUv/7mkDupCjThugY7Lm7RPmUob1 ikWifwXqVoyVjQiyfKuA5FqiUW86BjMTTe9swI0OaXQ5JjWs/vOWZLDot8RH6jpy12HA PU2g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oCZ/+sEEX9mJ9nOxcjnje3DZQwTXQNFTcV464q8M+VA=; b=dsNqCeHm4UgLDK2wRtczGqMScVtW9+TGmamio/ZDGN7e/fdRjBXTLQWQvyOm/fFhws DxGh4oLrK0HP+50pwUtvwDTZFAceYwWU+m6ioxKKL3xP9hgsDTfeCJFhSEr3zKRkWLqF 23UdQxF5lvFyqXozAnXtMyae4at+KLCfEiC+/Q16NChaVjloHfVKBdJsu4eLoqAch1pZ jfQ1s0mgieKlcK5wBYRh1s4z8CdjE0/5CkSrUysP8hJpcmlQN24XNN5Q1uQP1Al3hU1n L6mdQm5N3EulgrgdD8/OIDqbsxivBAbSPE3xPD4eWJNNdI/EOv36kkfSc8UjYPtwFmKP Ydvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoousZzX1shmVU4W86yCn1ima+IBhflWgkhdnZn+oWeGg+DUwV2uXTDQxMuWSjTIgLLQ8cvboPkclmbuxCSg==
X-Received: by 10.36.73.195 with SMTP id e64mr5741078itd.80.1472140761592; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.136.41 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1608251203310.14525@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <BC3FCB73-3ECA-4374-8AD5-845A452B6835@icann.org> <20160825043551.GP4670@mournblade.imrryr.org> <20160825072545.36iklvmpcfcpqawg@nic.fr> <CACfw2hjDNQcZo1To2wv=oAhDF1avDwJvA1myG4NgyYjRF95zSg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1608251203310.14525@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
From: william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:59:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CACfw2hguojqbictc0RvLFQiY=1BVdQ+qA0Ot_ztdZEndHUy+Hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113982fa277c71053ae77bc9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/VcAiaLRgqBD7rJVOWOt-3JMuWDU>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-03
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:59:23 -0000

On Thursday, 25 August 2016, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:

> william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > I'm with Ed here,  A valid response is silence.
>
> I think it is important for people producing and deploying DNS server
> software and DNS-interfering middleboxes to understand the bad
> consequences of dropping queries or responses. If you understand these
> effects and still think you can improve things by dropping packets, then
> maybe go ahead. But it isn't a simple valid / invalid binary choice.
>
> Tony.


> Where does the "badness" occur? The server or resolver?    The rational
> for a server to silently ignore a query often revolves around malformed
> queries ...  Should a server attempt to answer malformed queries or
> silently drop them?

What about client that will not shut up? Should rate limiting be frowned on
> and the server attempt to answer all received queries?


> Some food for thought

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email