Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-04.txt

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 14 February 2017 16:30 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 3BDE71296A4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 08:30:18 -0800 (PST)
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 51dfsxr32mNk for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 08:30:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97502129692 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 08:30:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:36936) by ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1cdfzb-0010yG-iM (Exim 4.88) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:30:15 +0000
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:30:15 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH1iCir41+4NPA4V0z4=vdkipJb1WWjtFTHgHg0dhjrs6SZuEA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1702141626390.23062@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CAH1iCir41+4NPA4V0z4=vdkipJb1WWjtFTHgHg0dhjrs6SZuEA@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/dy8bOdhp-ApS-bC-A7BVxy0LH2M>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-04.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, 14 Feb 2017 16:30:18 -0000

Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Would it be feasible to limit the behavior of "refuse-any" returning
> "partial" UDP responses, to situations where EDNS with DO=1 is used?

No, this is a defence mechanism, so it needs to cope with uncooperative
clients.

> Older resolvers would need to have some method of getting answers, so
> maybe for those, use the TC=1 method?

There's no "need", partial answers to QTYPE=ANY interoperate fine.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
Trafalgar: Southerly or southwesterly backing southeasterly at times, 4 or 5,
increasing 6 or 7 at times. Moderate or rough. Rain or showers. Moderate or
good.