Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any: points from Petr Špaček

Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> Mon, 07 August 2017 07:55 UTC

Return-Path: <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
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 E347E1288B8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 00:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 LY1fxRrJuF3P for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 00:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (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 A4219131EA2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 00:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.43] (unknown [77.236.194.38]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DC96623AB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 09:55:08 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1502092508; bh=L35/a+MgDP4rPNpz3WS2Ehm/2ZQtbmmTifEMEx4W8Sg=; h=To:From:Date; b=EZxohFNX6kcbw6Sd875FY1rU/zXrULwKsoN/k/Uj9YDi1hR23GU47kcUM9kToOUfP 9hFxkqBFc8Ee8gmmqwE9OQWf3pGTIAb2wP8pm3EJWBlA04XcR3SLyooFav19s7X2UB 4D53ucxVijFtxxg4ReaI9RrSjyMeeYmodd7zmOCw=
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <9002F172-4171-41EE-A0FF-61C7A5ACAD32@hopcount.ca> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1707261141550.27210@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Message-ID: <51680877-0843-c069-863a-85cf97990530@nic.cz>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 09:55:07 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1707261141550.27210@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/b8SRCfZ6MLYstNiylTnwMs2xARY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] =?utf-8?q?draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any=3A_points_from_Pet?= =?utf-8?b?ciDFoHBhxI1law==?=
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: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 07:55:14 -0000


On 26.7.2017 12:56, Tony Finch wrote:
> Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>>
>> If anybody else here has thoughts about specific text or violent
>> objections to including QTYPE=RRSIG in general, please let me know (I
>> looked in the mail archive but couldn't find any there).
> 
> I think it's helpful to mention RRSIG explicitly since it isn't
> immediately obvious that it's a stealth ANY query. (It becomes
> apparent to implementers fairly rapidly tho!)
> 
>> As we discuss (see Stephane's points) in the case of multiple
>> transports, perhaps we can also recommend that implementors provide
>> configuration options to allow administrators to deal with ANY, RRSIG,
>> neither or both. That way we get flexibility that matches deployment,
>> but we also get a reference for handling RRSIG in a predictable way.
> 
> I think the draft should recommend a simple on/off switch and describe
> sensible behaviour when it is on. Mainly because I think we know what
> that sensible behaviour is, and I don't think it's a big enough feature
> to deserve a lot of configuration and documentation complexity.

I agree with Tony that we know what that sensible behaviour is so, with
my implementor hat on, I would be perfectly happy with
implementation-specific behavior with no knobs at all. If you don't like
it, feel free to pick another implementation.

Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC

> 
> Having said that, the initiator side (section 5) needs a bit of work.
> Something like,
> 
>    ANY queries SHOULD be sent using the same choice of transport as other
>    queries (typically, try UDP first, and only use TCP if the response is
>    truncated). As an exception, debugging and diagnostics tools MAY have
>    a special case for ANY queries.
> 
> (bleeding-edge versions of `dig` use TCP for ANY)
> 
> Tony.