IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC1035 (5915)

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Thu, 26 December 2019 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
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 87D071200E7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:12:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_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 EpuFrlkhnTqv for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:12:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from straasha.imrryr.org (straasha.imrryr.org [100.2.39.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5986C120025 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:12:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.200.2.180] (sdzac10-108-1-nat.nje.twosigma.com [8.2.105.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by straasha.imrryr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2EE34299589 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:12:38 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKW6Ri76RJkscGuo=nsTDgwYCpZzssgAFCzYji4mu_AhGpLXkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:12:37 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-Id: <0F0AF50C-1CE8-4167-B074-AB2A19B2BCC0@dukhovni.org>
References: <20191122000302.3D09AF40709@rfc-editor.org> <CAHw9_iL01QrdXT+7_SGVNczRJinGvYUbjB9n2XCd8-k_qcq+sA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+nkc8AgDcaUN9mcDecXNqE+FzgbCs6cc3abr8n+bxPPLWkTbw@mail.gmail.com> <f8789d65-8ebc-f20d-7953-1688f35c08d5@bellis.me.uk> <CAKW6Ri76RJkscGuo=nsTDgwYCpZzssgAFCzYji4mu_AhGpLXkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/iNhRWKdUCTIW3lp7TeWCNQ2cgn0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC1035 (5915)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 26 Dec 2019 23:12:40 -0000


> On Dec 26, 2019, at 1:55 PM, Dick Franks <rwfranks@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Is there an implicit assumption here that all RRs beyond the UDP limit
> are to be discarded without requiring inspection of their internal
> content?

That makes for RRs that carry relevant DNS data from zone files, but
the OPT RR is "chrome" (channel metadata), and required for EDNS.

> If so, then I have a problem with the current EDE draft which appears
> to involve preferentially discarding the EDE option from the OPT RDATA
> (as distinct from the entire OPT RR).

So it may be reasonable to drop EDNS options, rather the whole OPT RR.
And if necessary drop answer and/or auth RRs, while retaining at least
a minimal OPT RR.

But I have not thought this through further, so perhaps some crucial
neglected factor could change the conclusion.

-- 
	Viktor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email