Re: [DNSOP] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-08: (with COMMENT)

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, December 28, 2015 04:40:20 AM John Levine wrote:
> >> NEW
> >> 
> >>    For instance, some authoritative name servers embedded in load
> >>    balancers reply properly to A queries but send REFUSED to NS queries.
> >>    This behaviour violates the DNS protocol (see Section ??? of [RFC??],
> >>    and improvements to the DNS are impeded if we accept such behaviour
> >>    as normal.
> >> 
> >> END
> >
> >Does anyone has an idea of the reference to use to replace the "???"

i think "violates" is the wrong verb above, and that there is no "???" referent that can make it 
right.

> Given that it doesn't seem to be a protocol violation, I'd suggest this:
> 
>     For instance, some authoritative name servers embedded in load
>     balancers reply properly to A queries but send REFUSED to NS queries.

i'm ok with that part, but not this part:

>     This behavior causes a variety of problems, such as invalid negative
>     answers, that are so severe that it is unreasonable to expect clients
>     to interoperate with them reliably and so there is no point in trying to
>     work around them.

"For interoperability reasons, many DNS initiators treat REFUSED as a synonym for SERVFAIL. 
All senders of the REFUSED signal should keep this in mind."

-- 
P Vixie