Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Thu, 02 July 2020 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
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 4F2153A0A1C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 09:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 LnLWKZNad7F2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 09:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa2.lax.icann.org (ppa2.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.77]) (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 07BB03A0A11 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 09:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PFE112-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) by ppa2.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with ESMTPS id 062GEWNw004400 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 16:14:32 GMT
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 09:14:30 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 09:14:30 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHWUIvd5vYUJf2WNU24u95Q+htsqQ==
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 16:14:30 +0000
Message-ID: <F71B8055-415E-4DF4-8089-04AA1445269D@icann.org>
References: <20200702011816.D4B0D1C3CD10@ary.qy> <2843010.V8yvLItfke@linux-9daj> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2007020949360.96330@ary.qy> <6402649.6cnN7U4pX5@linux-9daj> <20200702154841.GA83916@jurassic.vpn.mukund.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200702154841.GA83916@jurassic.vpn.mukund.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_53D3F808-AA2A-4383-BA08-BD98C65BB1BF"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-02_09:2020-07-02, 2020-07-02 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/W1yvkMNABsWyr1lMkh1JB-DdG7o>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt
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: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 16:14:36 -0000

The interpretation of whether a partial RRset is allowed by 1035/2181 made by JohnL, PaulV, and MukundS are all plausible and conflicting. RFC 1035 and RFC 2181 are unclear about whether an RRset that is required in a reply can be partial.

draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional as it stands is probably not the best place to update the understanding of the standards-level relationship between partial RRsets, the TC bit, and what parts of a response are required. Doing so is adventurous, time-consuming, and will almost certainly cause multiple current implementations to be out of compliance.

It is probably still worth doing, albeit carefully. A bad outcome would be finishing the document due to exhaustion instead of consensus.

--Paul Hoffman