IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 02:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 78B9912704A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:07:43 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=ViQg03OV; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=hoUjvN8q
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 LRhp8RMaUPXV for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:07:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EE0B126CB6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:07:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC059BF56B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:07:41 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1510538861; bh=70CBBDGM9bRK4gv0082TgBp4rgb7UELZsxg7RSKzPBA=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ViQg03OVuJgmayoK7v09dxz55ALrh7j4AqzER7izE3pScV3em2zpM3NSuA4KnJlur UDJZBy8XIgUB75VzuTj52lKqMaheO9EvV5vq9gpnWc5Ro+rb3HpjVEN7HahHnoakDd nQh46ivR1TA+FeV6ZYNvj/FD60aMGMqcL4v5CWiM=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MHKNcX4eN0V8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:07:40 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 21:07:37 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1510538860; bh=70CBBDGM9bRK4gv0082TgBp4rgb7UELZsxg7RSKzPBA=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=hoUjvN8qSRQdF6jQHQGMoiZ586OIh92NKPSKvVhHRS0iE81tCdXecMiJ4sRJZIIJ/ Oj7tNR3hnsWdKTDzizdvk/ah96pV8DmGrxGhmAKmbrv7vaR5ItkZpb7akC9cEkFdrn I4Ug7H9CMDu0EYU691Mw7tl3j5j46+QO2/Vsst0U=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171113020736.ga7rzgst2hurb56h@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <20171112075445.tf2ut5dxzhhnqe7l@mx4.yitter.info> <20171112131831.GA32208@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20171113014445.ncldrwnuuvluecx7@mx4.yitter.info> <5A08FD96.8030907@redbarn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <5A08FD96.8030907@redbarn.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/roxOw7vXkf8hvJaogFoQDs2tkYk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:07:43 -0000

Hi,

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 06:04:06PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
> 
> they must be ignored, because they could constitute part of a referral loop.
> valid referrals are to descendants not ancestors or cousins.

[…]

> we should note that an upward or sideways or other non-downward referral is
> a sign of misconfiguration and must be treated as SERVFAIL.

I am a little uncomfortable with using this document to specify
protocol behaviour as opposed to specifying protocol behaviour already
specified elsewhere.  I may have missed them, but I am not sure either
of these requirements (musts) are stated so baldly in any RFC.  Have I
missed something?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email