Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-04.txt

"Woodworth, John R" <> Fri, 10 February 2017 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F43B129BD5 for <>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:43:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JjFSwiPk4C5r for <>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:43:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02FAC129BDB for <>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:43:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id v1AKhIFE053493 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:43:19 -0600
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21271E0087; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:43:13 -0700 (MST)
Received: from lxomp06u.corp.intranet (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 792A61E007E; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:43:13 -0700 (MST)
Received: from lxomp06u.corp.intranet (localhost []) by lxomp06u.corp.intranet (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id v1AKhDYk000963; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:43:13 -0600
Received: from vodcwhubex502.ctl.intranet (vodcwhubex502.ctl.intranet []) by lxomp06u.corp.intranet (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id v1AKhDhR000951 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:43:13 -0600
Received: from PODCWMBXEX501.ctl.intranet ([]) by vodcwhubex502.ctl.intranet ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:43:12 -0600
From: "Woodworth, John R" <>
To: 'Richard Gibson' <>, Ólafur Guðmundsson <>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSgpl3U3YBSPPM/0Gynw7H0jqNgqFiEPqAgADpxACAABW0gP//ot/Q
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:43:11 +0000
Message-ID: <A05B583C828C614EBAD1DA920D92866BD06D5E0B@PODCWMBXEX501.ctl.intranet>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A05B583C828C614EBAD1DA920D92866BD06D5E0BPODCWMBXEX501ct_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dnsop <>, "Woodworth, John R" <>, "Ballew, Dean" <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:43:22 -0000

Richard, Olafur;

Just reread your draft and had a question.

Would it be worthwhile to formalize a default result-set for an ANY query in your draft?  Seems like there is a great disparity among implementations and as pointed out in your draft clients looking to save calories with a single query still require fallback logic “just in case” they don’t get what is expected.

Since this draft defines 3 alternate methods for determining responses, a 4th could formally define “normal”.  Just a thought.

BTW: like the idea of a the flag to better control intent.


From: DNSOP [] On Behalf Of Richard Gibson

Because without such a signal, humans using ANY for legitimate diagnostic purposes have no means of differentiating section 4.1/4.3 "subset" responses from conventional responses where there just happen to be only a small number of RRSets at the queried name, encouraging (or at least doing nothing to dissuade) a conclusion that the response is in fact conventional and complete.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Ólafur Guðmundsson <<>> wrote:
Thank you for your comments

Q: why do you think it is useful to complicate things with a EDNS0 flag ?


This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.