Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ogud-dnsop-any-notimp-00.txt

Ralf Weber <> Fri, 06 March 2015 23:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175611A8730 for <>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:33:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HOST_EQ_STATICB=1.372, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1l0wHn2x0ZzM for <>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:33:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3EE41A870D for <>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:33:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 107) id 2D2AC5F40EA2; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 00:33:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B89895F40DCA; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 00:33:44 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 15:33:12 -0800
From: Ralf Weber <>
To: Paul Vixie <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Olafur Gudmundsson <>,
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ogud-dnsop-any-notimp-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 23:33:49 -0000


On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 02:53:34PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
> i'd appreciate not having to argue about whether the term "ACL" is one
> of art or one of practice. let's talk about what we're trying to
> accomplish in terms of protocol revision, rather than talking about what
> specific application-specific words we shouldn't use when describing
> those accomplishments.
And I wasn't talking about that. My point was and still is that we
should make the ACL or hell what you call it not a requirement in
the draft, at least not one that is mandatory.

> >  There may be applications that
> > may want to have a default behavior, thus we should not put ACL in the
> > draft.
> i don't understand this statement. make the default "nobody". i thought
> you were disagreeing?
See above. I am fine with a draft that says one can implement an ACL to
allow requests. Lets try with some text for the section 3 of the draft:

A Recursive Resolver can answer with RCODE=0/ANCOUNT=0 to an ANY query
rather than the current content of it's cache. A recursive resolver can
implement a mechanism to allow certain hosts access to the cache content
with an ANY query.

is that what you want? I would be fine with that. I just don't want a
MUST on the ACL thing.

So long