IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Computerworld apparently has changed DNS protocol

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> Wed, 04 November 2009 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F24E3A67E9 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:39:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.882
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.882 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.367, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6iw6+PvTlo7g for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:39:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.enyo.de (mail.enyo.de [212.9.189.167]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201373A63D3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:39:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from deneb.vpn.enyo.de ([212.9.189.177] helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1N5mdr-0004Sy-7H; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:39:43 +0100
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <fw@deneb.enyo.de>) id 1N5mdq-0000Hm-Hc; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:39:42 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: David Blacka <davidb@verisign.com>
References: <200911041858.TAA24009@TR-Sys.de> <FD44BF39-5B62-4689-AC6D-8DFFAF340EA1@icsi.berkeley.edu> <088AD8CD-0245-4F5E-9159-ECF92E9D6B83@virtualized.org> <B67A73DC-8C2B-4B61-A043-96BB00E9A149@verisign.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:39:42 +0100
In-Reply-To: <B67A73DC-8C2B-4B61-A043-96BB00E9A149@verisign.com> (David Blacka's message of "Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:30:15 -0500")
Message-ID: <871vkerpm9.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Nicholas Weaver <nweaver@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Computerworld apparently has changed DNS protocol
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:39:34 -0000

* David Blacka:

> I actually researched this, and need to spend some time cleaning up
> the report before posting it to this list.  But the bottom line is
> that yes, all responses save a few at the apex of root are below 1500b
> (actually, below 1100b).  The responses that are larger are ". rrsig"
> and ". any" (and ". dnskey" if minimal dnskey responses aren't used).
> ". any" is the only one that would actually set TC if, say, the
> advertised buffer size were set to 1280.

What about a.root-servers.net/IN/A etc.?  (Assuming that
root-servers.net will be signed eventually.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email