Re: [DNSOP] Comment on section 2 of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05.txt

Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com> Tue, 27 September 2016 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <shuque@gmail.com>
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 9EC4412B237 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 wn0EuI6jCD8J for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (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 954E5128B44 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id d66so30671679wmf.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nbJfJ7c/xsF7z5Q/yr9kpQdEt+WcfVBqh4/faprGlYs=; b=HXyvZjlt28wWPYhqSD/NDDKA+VbomRBMfOjVEG8LQ2yzQ7W4l9w6+M8sAbq5S1LMOz nskxf696RrFTlIC0RY5MVhTYlqKxSBO9C72DmPAJa05ZTZBVd2mz9zfZN8qeJibTOxHe XBfvUWszPIs5K2DyqoyEk0Iy5V/BwmW39nP/5zn1F8QJ/h3AmwRF4RVS3JDSl4MHneQ6 I9/SfmJOynx2UIt/W47oiZYwMwxXmtYXacDwwmogEyUQRDKqZIwP1JTL1V0SB9h9TTHf mkc9lwgqiC+4uQtscPm53hfthRSovuciMhrMfSZ0sv49ZFplQQ6qUkuoiydRxiVVxga1 npTg==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nbJfJ7c/xsF7z5Q/yr9kpQdEt+WcfVBqh4/faprGlYs=; b=dtWf8w2d6elAxHFwqIYQHfGvTcaE89MjZL9k+9ijBRozihdYPFm/UotDt8qh/ejf/t ZE/pvUVbMJiBinjjkSbYAHhBFmy3rbaE0xk9CCxqRzpiceBj2nUDXBBWFSsxpi6pdPGP iEpVdd10eAjUxu1S+zSXa/vu2F9E0zE7dj8T8YcWD+opolv0O7+tKGA1/e5wswQfdbXB oILmfOxLQv5xIRgb9ejDzKEqoTBtDAhixFhWhFvt8QLdijJVAVi7eE4PJ/HE2KLEaiIR limrgUrOE91gM9hDKerpPqagczPhzfwntm2zuoVXnMgj4wzd2kdtRX/XDsdJD5hf6QCu yujA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwModYXyI4qeybj16bT5TYj8vI6mLyBNBrXUdp6GlY1hLigo/sLXCgZ9604qDSOuv8B9ZOfzURiiuNn4Yw==
X-Received: by 10.194.243.10 with SMTP id wu10mr23615178wjc.130.1475001241129; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.165.168 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <89B42AE2-0377-42A4-B943-E65C52B7CB55@icann.org>
References: <29B4A430-80C7-44C8-A6FA-54A1560D3FD7@icann.org> <20160927004928.22EAE5515C31@rock.dv.isc.org> <89B42AE2-0377-42A4-B943-E65C52B7CB55@icann.org>
From: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 14:34:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHPuVdVneekn9NL_u72KFk7aFQ8uWLkUDqAaW9c46SG-KDVuMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141a202055f55053d817daa
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/cvOvsmCf3BfbAocs65oanIIQzR4>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Comment on section 2 of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05.txt
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, 27 Sep 2016 18:34:05 -0000

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
wrote:

>
> I'd written up a response, but perhaps the intent of the text is fine.
> The way it is written is what is throwing me.
>
> Perhaps instead of this:
>
> #   When an iterative caching DNS resolver receives a response NXDOMAIN,
> #   it SHOULD store it in its cache and all names and RRsets at or below
> #   that node SHOULD then be considered to be unreachable.
>
> When an iterative caching DNS resolver receives a response with RCODE
> being NXDOMAIN, the resolver SHOULD store the response in its (negative)
> cache.  During the time the response is cached, any query with a QNAME at
> or descended from the denied name that is not otherwise cached
> (positively), can be assumed to result in a name error.  Responses to those
> queries SHOULD set RCODE=NXDOMAIN (using the DNSSEC records cached as
> proof).
>
> ...that's not the best wording either - but "unreachable" is not a term
> I'd use.  I'm not sure "negative cache" and "positive cache" are recognized
> terms.
>

I'd suggest replacing "unreachable" with "non-existent":

#   When an iterative caching DNS resolver receives an NXDOMAIN response,
#   it SHOULD store it in its (negative) cache and all names and RRsets at
or below
#   that node SHOULD then be considered non-existent.

-- 
Shumon Huque