IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-03

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Fri, 26 August 2016 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.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 78C4912D92D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 04:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-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 RyM7DPauRlfh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 04:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB18012D7E3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 04:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 04:19:04 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 04:19:04 -0700
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-03
Thread-Index: AQHR+V2vNwwRt0Lsk0uySpJ2cAoJz6BZlu8AgAAvd4CAADhsgIAABmiAgABQrICAAAbigIAAHgAAgAATBwD//7a9AIABEk8A
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:19:03 +0000
Message-ID: <47E7E680-4554-4978-B3A6-17DE2690A9FC@icann.org>
References: <BC3FCB73-3ECA-4374-8AD5-845A452B6835@icann.org> <20160825043551.GP4670@mournblade.imrryr.org> <20160825072545.36iklvmpcfcpqawg@nic.fr> <CACfw2hjDNQcZo1To2wv=oAhDF1avDwJvA1myG4NgyYjRF95zSg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1608251203310.14525@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CACfw2hguojqbictc0RvLFQiY=1BVdQ+qA0Ot_ztdZEndHUy+Hg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1608251719360.2933@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAC=TB12DFHmAndeb3fJNYr1sdS6U4GOrAoKZHZUcMfh7WXmrJA@mail.gmail.com> <20160825191928.mze4bbzypq2ml2uv@nic.fr> <20160825215635.B6693523BE94@rock.dv.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160825215635.B6693523BE94@rock.dv.isc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.19.0.160817
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3555040742_950206045"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/lsjZIa-eo909b7mhRK-R8mGguvM>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-03
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: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:23:29 -0000

On 8/25/16, 17:56, "DNSOP on behalf of Mark Andrews" <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of marka@isc.org> wrote:

    >    If you don't want to implement a EDNS than don't implement it.  If
    you don't want to use a EDNS option with some client then just
    ignore the option.  Similarly for EDNS flags.  The client is expecting
    that unsupported options and flags will be ignored not used to
    decide to drop a query.

If this is your intended message, stick to that in the draft.  I.e., don't go beyond the message by requiring responses to queries, reinforce how to respond if the server isn't implementing EDNS0.  Don't direct operators to perform maintenance checks, that has little to do with properly implementing the EDNS mechanism, stick with making sure implementers know what to code up.  Maybe this is "clarifications on EDNS response behavior" and not "no response issue".

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email