Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.txt

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 05 March 2019 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@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 F3FFE1312DC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 08:18:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 HPKSCU5BuTSu for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 08:18:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37F881312D2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 08:18:58 -0800 (PST)
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 15.0.1367.3; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 08:18:55 -0800
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 15.00.1367.000; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 08:18:55 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHU0ipbalD7ZbTcJEyvKh3uI0ig6KX8pL2AgAAxYgCAAAE5gIAAE3YAgAAGxQCAAMkaAIAABVyA
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 16:18:55 +0000
Message-ID: <3E7AF476-0989-4FA8-8186-F5AAFC87317A@icann.org>
References: <155094804613.28045.8648150477440044197@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+9_gVscCzr0S8A0Z23q0V1B+BZeLtDoZRSKyEJDPZ3P=KT-tw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaYo5JH6vf+djEn0O=YGhLV2AkytMg_eKQmWn=Pma5yBFQ@mail.gmail.com> <4253851.Zqd2zPpPcC@linux-9daj> <92355508-D5AC-46DC-8FF5-C1C4155601D8@isc.org> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1903042240330.32161@bofh.nohats.ca> <23678.40176.492174.37630@gro.dd.org>
In-Reply-To: <23678.40176.492174.37630@gro.dd.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <9C5A4EB9B99688449A548C8CEC7BF38B@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/r8t-MI517bUVValXn54G6g3d4Lo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.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: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 16:19:00 -0000

On Mar 5, 2019, at 7:59 AM, Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> wrote:
> 
> Paul Wouters writes:
>> In the non-DDOS case, the auth server is reachable and none of the data
>> is getting additional TTL added:
>> 
>>    Answers from authoritative servers that have a DNS Response Code of
>>    either 0 (NOERROR) or 3 (NXDOMAIN) MUST be considered to have
>>    refreshed the data at the resolver.  In particular, this means that
>>    this method is not meant to protect against operator error at the
>>    authoritative server that turns a name that is intended to be valid
>>    into one that is non-existent, because there is no way for a resolver
>>    to know intent.
>> 
>> Although perhaps it should also explicitely state this regarding
>> ServFail ?
> 
> I personally have a very strong opposition to including servfail.
> Servfail is an extremely clear indication that the authority that was
> contacted is having some sort of structural problem.  It is a very
> distinct condition from being told by the authority that the name does
> or does not exist.

I agree with David on this. This has been clear since RFC 1035.

--Paul Hoffman