IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-01.txt

Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com> Tue, 27 October 2015 02:31 UTC

Return-Path: <shuque@gmail.com>
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 589941B3353 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 R2uAmSXWEybg for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x235.google.com (mail-qk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C84721B3352 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qkfq3 with SMTP id q3so21747823qkf.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=lAMUbVHhJTSyJqWYIyluuh/6imf9//eAHhrCCIPlSSI=; b=C6ztB9CHdiHHslZAZX5g0SeEoEQqeI/yGncJhGtZGcftrWOPdvddEJKsC2Pthyzu1u 6RPE88np7ZmY2n4ljauMjOwIVdNkE1IA/JZAvDtpjAIQCw2hM417uV4g//3ylvb9PJEm DTmKyt9WFFLcMdubceHuCHObQnjfGDXltUzMKKCq7j17+++VywKtqqjuc43Kd12hGImC DjLiW0Fg7bTtcZsovsyZcaWsmEKtLExe8wTIiqBZxHGJhLxF7bPWkMptjihbTaRYpTNL BWgMG8E654d96Ps9YqQeyyAiftEa5THHA0HUNrA7H6v4nwGT0RfKUKM2CZUm9P5vEq4W tTvw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.73.197 with SMTP id w188mr7205710qka.39.1445913082888; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.80.170 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2035965.KYUXjUXnTr@sume.local>
References: <20150310.191541.52184726.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> <562DF7D8.9080004@bellis.me.uk> <562DFD49.5020508@bellis.me.uk> <2035965.KYUXjUXnTr@sume.local>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:31:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHPuVdXHeo8gSDc7YVUj4Mpp3QA+AFZ7D_jU6zg=F=VdAV7cLQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114a806eae895105230cdf2f"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ibdMdAeblUKKHcJjgX_qKFCd2BM>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>, Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-01.txt
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: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 02:31:25 -0000

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:

> On Monday, October 26, 2015 10:15:37 AM Ray Bellis wrote:
> > On 26/10/2015 09:52, I wrote:
> > > That's clear - what isn't perhaps, is what the RCODE should be, given
> > > that this text is in a section with "Name Error" in its title.
> >
> > For what it's worth, I expect the answer to be NOERROR, but I think the
> > text that lumps empty-non-terminals in with "name error" causes
> > sufficient ambiguity and confusion that an errata may be in order.
>
> strong +1.
>
> names that don't exist can't have children.


I agree, however I'm slightly amused that we are having this discussion in
2015. Is there anyone that is claiming that the response code for empty
non-terminals should not be NOERROR. Yes, there are some CDNs and hosting
providers that currently issue Name Error for empty non-terminals, but
every one of them I've spoken to has positively acknowledged that this is a
defect that they are planning to fix.

If we need to provide a reference, RFC 4592, Section 2.2.2 has a pretty
good treatment of empty non-terminals (updating 1034), that pretty
definitively states that they exist, and thus their response code cannot be
Name Error.

Shumon.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email