IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any and DO=0

Ólafur Guðmundsson <olafur@cloudflare.com> Mon, 08 February 2016 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <olafur@cloudflare.com>
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 897C21B2F18 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 08:46:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.078
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 4nvtA7lGIJCx for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 08:46:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22f.google.com (mail-yw0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f]) (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 7009A1B2F17 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 08:46:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id h129so106400561ywb.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 08:46:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=zRoCsXLt95gG3X8RKPpVnXmTxoEHet2qLE6zbpt0AY4=; b=qLuIW0kbYE9izi4Ixh8yeVRJ1/JQnGfMQDm4pUbCCS0FeRvwKTe2dEi+k76on4YG1b mJAeH+z0HtM4FSVePQ/+UUdfCiz64tZbbigGDBYZRRWubkaTYcn57mhOvri/HHHlOtyW RDx+5Rrl0cj8shMnMLul/bwvevSnyRS+RNDYM=
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zRoCsXLt95gG3X8RKPpVnXmTxoEHet2qLE6zbpt0AY4=; b=YLHQvnAr6NhKw6059BUGpVDcQHqga+8AZZBagn3exNCO+zsx26s+/YezncmVCR1bxL dxKcyCYBkNpWahwwxaq6P+HCNdNbNsKPDbnvqYGeqJ8l6znuhpspXlIXcOLZj6nPmRbY SfmJVKxj9F2ssdN/F+/vD3zAe9Fzm8hrn1TRUzNikmaeOAqu6VFhsQh6uD3hKoBNCAQF rpGu/JkuBkgvw5oND9NqlA4ErjobFsvqFKWoUQAO8tRRm9eXyaJL8p8Y51FiWNg5Zh5c 9IdiwqeoCeJCg3+OtYeZ6rbA7qjihryHFrPY+PaQgRkMnw1my/jSGRlTJ4J2k45jaTKD Feaw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOThBPofhWLYrolBTvA3lchQeF3ZQ6O+k0ekx5lHmpIFwk9b89AWO9FwFcgJtmU8ctHQMD3DJYEFWmilYdJ2
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.54.15 with SMTP id d15mr14400103ywa.17.1454949996731; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 08:46:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.64.65 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 08:46:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1602071411270.2469@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1602052158390.7000@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1602071411270.2469@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 16:46:36 +0000
Message-ID: <CAN6NTqwjDBn7LedfP_sBOC=UF-Ah4fEFi8J45wvSKmjes6orFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ólafur Guðmundsson <olafur@cloudflare.com>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114272e4b8d50b052b44f191"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/YmIu8_DINOFc8bBGj2Rr0UB2uHY>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any and DO=0
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: <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: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 16:46:38 -0000

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:

> Another question:
>
> In order to minimize responses even further, I have made my code omit or
> include signature records depending on whether DO=0 or DO=1. That is, and
> ANY query with DO=0 gets one arbitrary unsigned RRset in response, and an
> ANY query with DO=1 gets one arbitrary signed RRset.
>
> Is this sensible, and if do should it be suggested by the draft?
>
>
Tony: the draft says right now:

A DNS responder which receives an ANY query MAY decline to provide a
   conventional response, and MAY instead send a response with a single
   RRSet in the answer section.

   The RRSet returned in the answer section of the response MAY be a
   single RRSet owned by the name specified in the QNAME.  Where
   multiple RRSets exist, the responder MAY choose a small one to reduce

   its amplification potential.

Is that not sufficient ?

Olafur

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email