Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Sun, 05 July 2020 02:11 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 ABE483A07C2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 19:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 kHdWw9fYBvH1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 19:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E5E23A07C0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 19:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PFE112-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with ESMTPS id 0652BNlE015300 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 5 Jul 2020 02:11:24 GMT
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 Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 19:11:22 -0700
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 15.00.1497.006; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 19:11:22 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
CC: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHWUnGUbP/q3ptDv0am0rUFq43ieA==
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2020 02:11:22 +0000
Message-ID: <D358F256-817C-40AB-9754-32F9505D1688@icann.org>
References: <20200702011816.D4B0D1C3CD10@ary.qy> <2843010.V8yvLItfke@linux-9daj> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2007020949360.96330@ary.qy> <1734668.YOVlOlHUhS@linux-9daj>
In-Reply-To: <1734668.YOVlOlHUhS@linux-9daj>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3CA5D6A3-DBF8-472C-9F8E-015AF2152B86"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-04_18:2020-07-02, 2020-07-04 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/s8CYGM0Uwu5npt02I6OIzdh8ux0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.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: Sun, 05 Jul 2020 02:11:27 -0000

On Jul 4, 2020, at 3:58 PM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, 2 July 2020 14:50:24 UTC John R Levine wrote:
>> 
>> Well, maybe.  Even if you got one A record there might be others. 
> 
> no. truncation is on RRset boundaries. even in a truncated response, RRsets 
> are never broken up. if you have any A records for a name, you have them all.

This draft only quotes from RFC 1034, an RFC in which the word "truncation" does not appear. In fact, the word "fit" doesn't appear in this sense either.

RFCs 1035 and 2181 give mixed messages about incomplete RRsets. That is, it is easy to quote one part and say "see, this proves what I said" for different values of "what I said".

As I said earlier in this thread, this seems like to be the wrong draft in which to fix the vagueness about full RRsets.

--Paul Hoffman