IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Asking TLD's to perform checks.

"Ralf Weber" <dns@fl1ger.de> Sun, 08 November 2015 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <dns@fl1ger.de>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD921ACEF1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 01:32:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 UJ4yVp7O-dSF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 01:32:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.guxx.net (smtp.guxx.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:a0:322c::25:42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0536F1ACEEF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 01:32:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix, from userid 107) id 5F0A55F4051E; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 10:32:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.2.102] (p57B9F6F0.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [87.185.246.240]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C71005F40414; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 10:32:34 +0100 (CET)
From: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2015 10:32:34 +0100
Message-ID: <EC808DA3-D449-4555-8BD9-E9C01EAFA18C@fl1ger.de>
In-Reply-To: <20151107235213.CF2683C117B4@rock.dv.isc.org>
References: <20151105235402.39FFC3BF2F29@rock.dv.isc.org> <8D78B784-34D3-421E-B82C-52DD32E22B74@fl1ger.de> <20151106201718.0FCBA3C06566@rock.dv.isc.org> <53FE03EF-9C40-40DC-A403-50C0A339C6C6@fl1ger.de> <20151107235213.CF2683C117B4@rock.dv.isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.3r5164)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/fY-KJ76X5AneDfBhq2JXaY306Ns>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Asking TLD's to perform checks.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 08 Nov 2015 09:32:37 -0000

Moin!


On 8 Nov 2015, at 0:52, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Fixing misimplementations of the protocol is different to fixing
> misconfiguration of servers.  The draft is aimed primarially at
> fixing misimplementations rather than misconfigurations though both
> need fixing.
Sorry I over generalised. To the receiving end everything were one
has to do something because of an unexpected result the work is
the same.

> As a vendor you (Nominum) should be checking the servers you ship
> are compliant.  If you find ones that are out of compliance you
> should be fixing them and informing your customers that there are
> fixed servers available.  Compliance tests should be part of the
> QA process.
We do that, but we have lot more tests that make sure the server
still works/resolves when someone on the authoritative side screwed
up.

So long
-Ralf

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status