IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wreck problem draft-dashevskyi-dnsrr-antipatterns

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Fri, 16 April 2021 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 3D5C33A1D42 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 02:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=portfast.net
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 xHtKT5ohQbmV for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 02:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.portfast.net (mail.portfast.net [IPv6:2a03:9800:20:1::2]) (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 7FBD83A1D3E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 02:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=portfast.net; s=dkim; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=IkEkwEuS+iEZTlxZeS/u488NNbKZefceRCSxkqDH1Ak=; b=C68vfv+mOmg8T0xmUSE6VQe2WO Wx1599dVd1/zxa/z/e4PHXI6/kgPn/SDVCfpTsXsM2xkU8QxZ+KlGcLcCaKjLRQeg/T5OJ4LuoIx6 +8iBtiwu6Mw39Yf6aeypl9n6+TLTRHPifdnsV3JgUTjfDtCfzZ6mJPfHc1yTZ4gCjt5s=;
Received: from 216-213-183-57.customer.gigaclear.net ([216.213.183.57]:53067 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by mail.portfast.net ([188.246.200.9]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1lXKLN-0006DU-OU (Exim 4.89) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:00:53 +0100
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20210414090142.GA12570@nic.fr> <20210414091905.GB12570@nic.fr> <b341442d-cf12-1b7e-dfc0-a2b7afb77bd3@bellis.me.uk>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <fc50ced8-e59d-834b-2241-e8f6810a9206@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:00:53 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b341442d-cf12-1b7e-dfc0-a2b7afb77bd3@bellis.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/bFJ2fivAkECecQ4UxGMlbKLy2f0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wreck problem draft-dashevskyi-dnsrr-antipatterns
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 16 Apr 2021 09:01:03 -0000


On 16/04/2021 09:18, Ray Bellis wrote:

> Yes, that was pretty much it.
> 
> Many DNS proxies / ALGs don't inspect the packet contents at all, so a
> stronger generic requirement was not feasible.

FWIW, I have formally requested that the authors withdraw the statement
in the paper's conclusion that infers that RFC 5625 is "too complex,
ambiguous or outdated".

They have utterly failed to comprehend that the scope and context of RFC
5625 was DNS Proxy / ALGs in home gateways and that it is not
appropriate to criticize it for not making normative requirements of
*every* DNS stack.  They simply were not in scope.

Ray

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email