IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] refer-down

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 29 May 2018 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 0D0AF1200E5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 May 2018 08:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.752
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.752 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=OThf8jLZ; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=SMcsRn0a
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 8bOXL8SlitFy for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 May 2018 08:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 324BF12D87D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 May 2018 08:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 30093 invoked from network); 29 May 2018 15:52:24 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=758b.5b0d7738.k1805; bh=DIrIcgwr/S8cuADCmDhAXsz9LNT4ECOkFTW+ZqXFJ3w=; b=OThf8jLZaZ13H6ATBfYTPKMDCcJPOM6oENG//BdOPKRJ+QyBO0UI4Pc2+lq7EfQpbevp50AyT1yIt78M9jJlbrSs/W0Btnah9dF6c8Izi0ZgkuKizCLg9boNdl2XPqgptJ4h0o+/lKkdMpr3X5jcCyT8jaD4ZbxTMPjHpipPkQDOZSqML+tNwpmiXEy9x6oCQRt2O/dI73lJsmYgLmE59hhX4kPSexjb6kM0TbuHVAwa9WsG7oTKm3pwTtgOGteu
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=758b.5b0d7738.k1805; bh=DIrIcgwr/S8cuADCmDhAXsz9LNT4ECOkFTW+ZqXFJ3w=; b=SMcsRn0aNV48UUS/cnRnc2ulTBw2/v4y1o9QgNirf2SMhCJWOgflnpmXT7myZAlQ/401zvTCRZOO8yZPLH1N/t9WE6DjEO9YsywqUthp7cgzuKqKhU5f0FbWytoiObOZonizHUCUkpfT1YQaovT28CF5ZQopGia0ep+DPUDdhEvKjjuMEckiR+drE4mh4Uxv6JjvNBhtEL0gJ7VLqSuVa79u1juJ5GNdrhgOtE1QPYqvrKjFVz57Lkmr5S9tR9/3
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 29 May 2018 15:52:24 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 511AA2749879; Tue, 29 May 2018 11:52:23 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 11:52:23 -0400
Message-Id: <20180529155224.511AA2749879@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
In-Reply-To: <20180529032839.GA18049@mx4.yitter.info>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/jn3zL9zgWGoQg8_uYTQuZN8-KLo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] refer-down
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 29 May 2018 15:52:28 -0000

In article <20180529032839.GA18049@mx4.yitter.info> you write:
>> I like it because I like anything that makes the DNS simpler.  I'd
>> make the advice clearer, authoritative servers that want to
>> interoperate MUST refuse out of zone requests.
>
>This is an interesting suggestion.  

Thanks.

>> I'd also like to consider offering clearer advice on what do do when a
>> recursive server gets an authoritative query.  Is there any situation
>> other than misconfiguration or testing when that would happen?  Are we
>> doing anyone a real favor by returning anything other than REFUSED?
>
>You mean, when a server that is not authoritative for anything
>nevertheless gets a query with RD==0?  I think that's fine.  How else
>do you debug a cache?

I'm guessing that it's intended to mean return the answer if you
already have it.  If so, we should document that.  I see that unbound
makes it an option but normally refuses any RD=0 queries.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email