IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 18 August 2016 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 B09F712D0EE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 12:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 Vn1sH-KG6Utm for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 12:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 5FFC712B03C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 12:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.35] (access-63-249-70-166.static.cruzio.com [63.249.70.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u7IJqhZe064448 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 18 Aug 2016 12:52:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host access-63-249-70-166.static.cruzio.com [63.249.70.166] claimed to be [10.32.60.35]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Marek Vavruša <mvavrusa@cloudflare.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 12:52:43 -0700
Message-ID: <52403FB3-2187-4E88-8909-E00483C9EF03@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAC=TB12PtSpU3_mL0+QdmJwqvfYm4go=fmtK80aRg7On6XgfHg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DAE8C592-A5A6-4EDA-A100-67B7DD900C36@vpnc.org> <20160818175713.16299.qmail@ary.lan> <CAC=TB12PtSpU3_mL0+QdmJwqvfYm4go=fmtK80aRg7On6XgfHg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/l1s5jV4TqeoN4DhC9ng9zEmiRmw>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 18 Aug 2016 19:52:47 -0000

On 18 Aug 2016, at 11:29, Marek Vavruša wrote:

> Or SRV.

I disagree that a user, when asking for a SRV record, doesn't know that 
it is likely that they would want the results for the information that 
comes back in the RDATA.

> These are cases where authoritative/resolver adding
> interesting records as additionals works better.
> Authoritatives have been doing that with extra SOA/NS in authority for
> a while (for positive answers), but now
> resolvers can hardly use them if these records are not secure.

Security of additional data is important, but orthogonal to what can be 
asked for or pushed.

> Regardless of which draft is going to be adopted,

This thread is not about "which draft", it is about what is needed.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email