Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-03

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 25 August 2016 11:10 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 4BE8F12B00B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 04:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 INC8I5E8_Sa5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 04:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.141]) (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 9CE4A12B046 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 04:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:42856) by ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.139]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1bcsYP-0004D8-Sy (Exim 4.86_36-e07b163) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:10:37 +0100
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:10:37 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACfw2hjDNQcZo1To2wv=oAhDF1avDwJvA1myG4NgyYjRF95zSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1608251203310.14525@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <BC3FCB73-3ECA-4374-8AD5-845A452B6835@icann.org> <20160825043551.GP4670@mournblade.imrryr.org> <20160825072545.36iklvmpcfcpqawg@nic.fr> <CACfw2hjDNQcZo1To2wv=oAhDF1avDwJvA1myG4NgyYjRF95zSg@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/glYFamQVZfWfgsvViGNksIg5wic>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-03
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: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:10:45 -0000

william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm with Ed here,  A valid response is silence.

I think it is important for people producing and deploying DNS server
software and DNS-interfering middleboxes to understand the bad
consequences of dropping queries or responses. If you understand these
effects and still think you can improve things by dropping packets, then
maybe go ahead. But it isn't a simple valid / invalid binary choice.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
Southeast Fitzroy: Northerly or northeasterly 5 or 6, occasionally 7 later.
Moderate or rough. Thundery showers. Good occasionally poor.