Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error and combinations of EDEs and RCODEs

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Thu, 12 September 2019 04:50 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
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 9B6901200C7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 21:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 imvbRZV-NyDW for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 21:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACE54120108 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 21:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 345F22220C; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 21:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
Cc: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <EA557043-34D1-43EA-B750-4A17CFC6BE50@icann.org> <ybl36h4aj8x.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <AFE92D06-8418-4451-A827-D5656C83B796@icann.org> <yblzhjbeova.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <067589D2-8E7E-47FA-867C-72E266A55D6D@icann.org> <CADyWQ+EB-eotvTdYwNv5Oo4=-mibdgEgpkQ3yh37orAwp-AgWg@mail.gmail.com> <ybly2yubfnp.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <21136294-FDFD-4A99-9529-E79C45E79535@icann.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 21:50:24 -0700
In-Reply-To: <21136294-FDFD-4A99-9529-E79C45E79535@icann.org> (Paul Hoffman's message of "Thu, 12 Sep 2019 01:13:31 +0000")
Message-ID: <yblzhja9kz3.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/kYn4AU_OijH_NTXY2pK0pTBpEDo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error and combinations of EDEs and RCODEs
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, 12 Sep 2019 04:50:30 -0000

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>; writes:

> On Sep 11, 2019, at 4:02 PM, Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>; wrote:
> > 
> > Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>; writes:
> > 
> >> it sounds to me that a discussion on assumptions with EDEs and RCODES
> >> would be useful in the security considerations section as well. 
> > 
> > I'll look at wording along those lines.
> > 
> > Note, however, that EDE codes are specifically meant as supplemental
> > information and shouldn't be "acted" upon.  Hence
> > 
> > Paul> A developer writes code that assumes that EDE X must go with RCODE Y
> > Paul> because the text for EDE X indicates that. The get a response with EDE
> > Paul> X and RCODE Z. The code rejects that, and does not act on RCODE Z.
> > 
> > "does not act on RCODE Z" is already the right approach, since it's
> > unauthenticated in the first place (which is discussed in the
> > document).
> 
> I do not understand this. Many receivers of RCODEs act on them even
> though they are unauthenticated. A recursive resolver receiving a
> message with RCODE of SERVFAIL will look at other authoritative
> servers, for example.

You implied said ""RCODE Z" but implied "RCODE Z but also looked at EDE
code X", and deliberately didn't act on Z because the presence of EDE
code X.  This document isn't (and shouldn't) change the processing
behavior of RCODEs; it only augments an additional message with
additional information which can be reported to the user or log or ...
It's not supposed to affect decision processing.

[arguably with the R bit in place, it was; but we removed that]

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI