IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-03.txt

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 17 March 2024 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 64D28C14F5FA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.859
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.859 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b="YfPBrAy6"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b="m4IlCoL7"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AM575mzjeHV1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 851BCC14F5F6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 36959 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2024 16:07:46 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=905d65f71552.k2403; bh=wi/oijEItavdT8JkZzPySZJT5j90WJg7ZIYs6pur9XI=; b=YfPBrAy6QwTO4XSEE83y5DiLkIO2cSHKh1BVlLnIJQze9BXt9MJsrZ0MdI5LVyg2o9mdqRN6hczL4CF0kLvBbYUAoEe2tVeLX2lu4BZ22kpK70fM3TyQPjNbihvrzeX2E3zcEDaLMqW/DGqYjfMsz0WT0oVD6SqHYiYqwFoGyq8daCLwx/7oswczA0EEo/zJPy+Q8UzVJR2YdKSh7/BxmdlePuBb5vROyYbELX100dDLsp1p8ukPZEER0mfitb68hTs7iXo2Ypn5twBlvro1GWxr9nPno77DzwjNyh6nETzJcebLt0O9v0iTZh19R9k0wLbAKxP6gDgJ4CpMpV3RzQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=905d65f71552.k2403; bh=wi/oijEItavdT8JkZzPySZJT5j90WJg7ZIYs6pur9XI=; b=m4IlCoL7RwrfmKPkpdN/NB5aTtl+dNxZO9VDO2ERYzBVXVa3im7jvHqhd/QxA24EQuACig/SsAV18YW9TBst2lzzT62Z6COigaOBRz0Zpy9YvNSuD5Ulzf6kl2J/5LIyWClHWWH5Ww/ehpSvokzd6jQi+vyet37mfncOsu8rxwdHfYY4y/YoTGU6Bura8WTMNeHxzCNU4ES+brydhQ62TwjzYY0zgS4Rpm2ZoV/oXPhOl6rlKX4SOjhGOIYHifn27gbN9xm9P1gJYgxsmH69t5KXVgzeKdzTZIWjp5NdEBJ7Hc9okSJVDHf7wG9nnoDMBtw8W4bxk7OhEKjyZ9iguw==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD) via TCP6; 17 Mar 2024 16:07:46 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id A4ED8858A5F3; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:07:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:07:45 -0400
Message-Id: <20240317160745.A4ED8858A5F3@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: tale@dd.org
In-Reply-To: <26102.24462.696376.343194@gro.dd.org>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rLaEFJ0cR1sVft1eonVBjyycWcc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:07:52 -0000

It appears that Dave Lawrence  <tale@dd.org> said:
>Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
>> > One current implementation does not differentiate DO=0 vs 1 and gives the
>> > same NODATA answer for both cases.
>> 
>> Yes. I see no practical problem with that but, from a philosophical
>> point of view, it disturbs me. Naive clients may make wrong
>> conclusions from the NODATA answer. 
>
>Very much so, and not just naive programmatic clients but also
>non-naive real-life human clients.  I myself have been misled by
>noerror/nodata where nxdomain would have been correct.  It's
>frustrating.
>
>nxdomain is usefully distinct and auth servers really ought to be
>strongly encouraged to return it where applicable.

We have an entire RFC 8020 about the difference and why it's important.

>From my point of view, anything that doesn't keep that distinction is seriously broken.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email