IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] tdns, 'hello-dns' progress, feedback requested

Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org> Fri, 13 April 2018 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <muks@mukund.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 57EB0127201 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 WR6kezmHM7w1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.banu.com (mail.banu.com [IPv6:2a01:4f8:140:644b::225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9075124E15 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ponyo.lan.banu.com (014136203107.static.ctinets.com [14.136.203.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.banu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3570B32C0719; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 17:51:38 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 01:51:25 +0800
From: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org>
To: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>
Message-ID: <20180413175125.GA8282@ponyo.lan.banu.com>
References: <20180413144707.GA4767@server.ds9a.nl> <623F11C7-6E4D-40F5-8AD1-8F7E92C8C7F9@vpnc.org> <20180413151152.GB4767@server.ds9a.nl> <20180413163135.GA28695@isc.org> <20180413171330.GA7241@ponyo.lan.banu.com> <20180413173514.GA29212@isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180413173514.GA29212@isc.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Y614jwV1nznQrQxq_WGTLKSvFF4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] tdns, 'hello-dns' progress, feedback requested
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 17:51:44 -0000

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 05:35:14PM +0000, Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 01:13:30AM +0800, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 04:31:35PM +0000, Evan Hunt wrote:
> > > I could have sworn there was an RFC published several years ago concerning
> > > the prevention of cache poisoning, which specified that resolvers had to
> > > ignore out of zone CNAMEs and re-query, but I can't find it now. Poor
> > > google skills, or did I dream the whole thing?
> > 
> > RFC 2181
> 
> That was a "should", not a MUST. I thought I remembered something that
> upgraded it to MUST, but I can't find it now.

Nod, RFC 2181 doesn't use RFC 2119/8174 keywords, so the "should" there
doesn't have a pointy meaning.

		Mukund

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email