Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-04.txt

Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org> Thu, 21 February 2019 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <rwfranks@gmail.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 D0271130F47 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:18:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.018, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 KHydUkBZ0AHy for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:18:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-f181.google.com (mail-it1-f181.google.com [209.85.166.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AB98130F52 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:18:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-f181.google.com with SMTP id e24so6364303itl.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:18:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KB1UeRlT8K1Eelr93zQaEWNPJs2UiiOHGDJRNaDy8d4=; b=GQ3zb3AsQgm68QAlZfQPHp8dvuIbTcDDWT2a+ESp6ddYEiQVpn9bfF5uIwAeEiQRDS 3yMYYwb4CBIfgEHfOANXhajxwhed9HlLPG4q3/LlWnRVXbpwQRJkICmh0WdbuJJ94XCv by4tu1iuLq0RO+jaltgZ2MscOIxSQvlyjbtfYo5qH2UjEjPPnc9UPadX8X1V224A6BO/ cZ0mH1aN4EKdY8aXuf/jna6klfo3JpLOzsSazpPwkNCBZXqDkNyeQLZ5KIUvUhYdapEh 8SdPn6B4ydumC40bC8bJwx+nA1pqfnETvbwfeQx3FUc1JS61VfqlzZESr3dB9fD02TRp x+cQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZm9DPtcsXONtDpd5IRvVsnaCNt/fFUk0AJerwDUSdJx8+AqJcS PqHJAF83MvkTylKhy8nHccfRxGoZIsHKVqG3eqPQjA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IY3jD/+VaUXUDig5OTsYQlm8jNdUOo9vCC+BRToPzE4vPxb2nh6/97ZgeSFDZEuoXepuAjOV5OIXK9haqLLBao=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:f30b:: with SMTP id t11mr6193061ith.40.1550711906661; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:18:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154689301066.32204.17312124670782800354@ietfa.amsl.com> <ybl1s5nxgau.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <3c2ef704-148f-ed03-26a9-8ea29256acc2@nic.cz> <56e824cf-37e3-0880-0192-2ee46a818345@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <56e824cf-37e3-0880-0192-2ee46a818345@nic.cz>
From: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 01:17:49 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKW6Ri7JiotUbmDuKZ4NjE-yJkHv69DBvonGL56bmzPrjeHXtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000058770a05825d40b7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/m2pmrUXGpXeS6ncgXNc3UW7mpNI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-04.txt
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, 21 Feb 2019 01:18:33 -0000

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 11:27, Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> wrote:
8<

> Yet another code propodsl:
> * answer with stale data
>
>    The resolver was unable to resolve answer within its time limits and
>    decided to answer with stale data instead of answering with an error.
>    This is typically caused by problems on authoritative side, possibly
>    as result of an DoS attack. Retrying is likely to cause load and not
>    yield a fresh answer, RETRY=0.
>
> Here is a problem that this code point is applicable to NOERROR as well
> as NXDOMAIN answers so I'm not sure how to categorize it. This
> reinforces my unanswered question why the draft proposes to copy RCODE
> into EDE.
>

This seems to be a good argument in favour of a one-dimensional error table.

--Dick