IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] On some terminology in draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize (truncation)

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Mon, 03 March 2014 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A8D01A0346 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 10:41:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 xE-P4PXoSy7s for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 10:41:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alpha.virtualized.org (alpha.virtualized.org [199.233.229.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B641A0335 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 10:41:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpha.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3770286606; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:41:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from alpha.virtualized.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (alpha.virtualized.org [127.0.0.1]) (maiad, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11081-07; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:41:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dhcp-b7e1.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-b7e1.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.183.225]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drc@virtualized.org) by alpha.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43369864B2; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:41:08 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FF2AECED-6FFA-4F3B-93D3-F258D247F240"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <53149C57.1040105@redbarn.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 18:41:07 +0000
Message-Id: <C9C88C7D-E43E-4687-961F-980A4839F561@virtualized.org>
References: <20140303105138.GA3875@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <53149C57.1040105@redbarn.org>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/owcGJSJHYwY5MZAPpLZw80ENAdI
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On some terminology in draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize (truncation)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 18:41:16 -0000

On Mar 3, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
> are you advising (by implication) that a receiver who hears TC=1 with ANCOUNT>0 or NSCOUNT>0 or ADCOUNT>0 treat it as a FORMERR?

Hmm.

I always assumed that if TC=1, pretty much everything else in the response was irrelevant since I would be unable to trust what was there was complete. So I'd say 'no' and I don't see any ambiguity....

Regards,
-drc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email