Re: [DNSOP] On some terminology in draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize (truncation)

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Wed, 05 March 2014 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753DB1A016B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:06:12 -0800 (PST)
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] autolearn=ham
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 mYIZsOEjcW1B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:06:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D841A01E1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:06:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id C4F1A3BC9D; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:06:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by tyrion (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 14F65F00AF7; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:05:46 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:05:46 +0000
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <20140305140545.GA16818@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <20140303105138.GA3875@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <53149C57.1040105@redbarn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53149C57.1040105@redbarn.org>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 13.10 (saucy)
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/YSztVgQk2StmKY3l5ziYvqLQo80
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On some terminology in draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize (truncation)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 14:06:13 -0000

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:14:31AM -0800,
 Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote 
 a message of 45 lines which said:

> > I don't think that a RRset can be "possibly truncated". Either it is
> > truncated (not sent in its entirety) and the TC bit is set, the
> > resolver does not have to guess, or it is not truncated. There is
> > never an ambiguity. (Unless you use "truncation" in the sloppy sense I
> > criticized above.)
> 
> are you advising (by implication) that a receiver who hears TC=1 with
> ANCOUNT>0 or NSCOUNT>0 or ADCOUNT>0 treat it as a FORMERR?

No. And there is no path from what I wrote to this strange
conclusion. You can have several RRsets in an answer, and some can be
intact and complete.