IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Definition of "validating resolver"

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sun, 08 March 2015 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 A928F1A0100 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 12:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.69
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.69 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 5NA71lAgt794 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 12:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0C321A00F5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 12:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3l0YGx6cgcz7ZN; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 20:51:53 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: mx.nohats.ca; dkim=pass reason="1024-bit key; unprotected key" header.d=nohats.ca header.i=@nohats.ca header.b=ZHT04Li7; dkim-adsp=pass
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vdbDojxROOty; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 20:51:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 20:51:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BF880416; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:51:50 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1425844310; bh=n2dkrpSjXN4vrOrlOUrScNoR9rZoi+mxwUrhzoM6itI=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZHT04Li7VN4rQCoajUH91iCjiAmhgNBwNTWGLeNLVxsTYlq5Ioi+YxsgWVsiyygB6 wKG8XCx2c95SNCPaYIMQRZ8WLjot/TCCTFsbCmTJr2hkWlZdkKB9PI9pxxTUO4oAkz F2mXdNMHDXuhsX/UAhXHzfLaN/YIeW92oKSFKotc=
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by bofh.nohats.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id t28JpnDv023981; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:51:50 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 15:51:49 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <DED3D224-C507-4751-808C-3D881A238942@vpnc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1503081548260.22207@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <DED3D224-C507-4751-808C-3D881A238942@vpnc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/iIUGgutMHvZzo4-t-gPfWWXep3c>
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Definition of "validating resolver"
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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 Mar 2015 19:52:01 -0000

On Sun, 8 Mar 2015, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> My personal interpretation is that "validating resolver" is a synonym for "security-aware resolver". Do others agree? If not, how would you differentiate them?

I agree :)

Two other issues I noticed when trying to rewrite my draft to stick to
terms in this document is:

"DNS Forwarder" is the only term prefixes with "DNS". I'd wish we could
just use "Forwarder".

I see no term for "Recursive Server" - there is one for Authoritative
Server. And the term "Resolver" oddly means something else (which after
reading it in the DNS Terminology draft, just makes me weep.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email