IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 12 July 2016 11:00 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 8C30B12D105 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 04:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_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 h6irGKpKVzQM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 04:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.140]) (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 C4151127071 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 04:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:57383) by ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1bMvQp-000EGz-k9 (Exim 4.86_36-e07b163) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:00:51 +0100
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:00:51 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_i+GZ0ks0eJvBn0vo-DBCpY-EQM6wcv=cpmPsyJKqXOf9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1607121156160.25696@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <20160701075116.24678.59997.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20160706.180940.1170484542745240536.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> <435414e8-2b20-b9d0-7707-14016fae1163@bellis.me.uk> <3FEEE970-032F-498A-BACC-D232F79C3159@vpnc.org> <CAHw9_i+s1C+rJxqQETQb14Y8MU66pMwKRts-UR8E0hHeqNH2tw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1607071024490.17030@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAHw9_iJi-0YTj-uM20LOWm0zakbyN=qV=-+_sva8kPef9=XWjQ@mail.gmail.com> <1468265634.261721.663188889.38101B84@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CAHw9_i+GZ0ks0eJvBn0vo-DBCpY-EQM6wcv=cpmPsyJKqXOf9w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Z9BrM5rviDLK7uRIYq-I_x67TlI>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:00:56 -0000

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
>
> Yup - it could be used to instruct a (non-validating) resolver to
> please go off and start fetching this list of other records... but,
> seeing as everyone already validates (right?!) we don't suggest this.

:-D

> > However I don't know how an authority would decide whether
> > to fill in the additional data or the EXTRA RRs...
>
> Hmm. It seems that we have done a poor job of wording this bit. We
> meant to say that this information is always placed in the additional
> section (assuming that support is signalled). The only exception to
> this is if someone queries for the EXTRA record explicitly.
>
> But, Wes, Yan and I (and anyone else interested. Tony?) will discuss
> the best way to encode this in the zone file in Berlin, and also
> better explain the "always stuff this in additional (because, well, it
> is additional), but people can ask if they really want to..." bit

Sorry, I was being too terse. I was thinking that in some cases (lack of
DNSSEC) the resolver might want to receive the EXTRA RRset itself rather
than the other records that it lists, so the resolver can go and fetch the
other records. But on second thoughts this is silly, because the resolver
can use the other records as a fetch hint just as well as it could use an
EXTRA RRset as a fetch hint.

(I'm afraid I won't be in Berlin.)

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
Fair Isle: Northwest 5 or 6, decreasing 4 at times. Moderate. Rain or showers,
fog patches in north. Moderate or good, occasionally very poor in north.

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status