IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-00.txt

Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> Wed, 15 November 2017 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <tale@dd.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 98571129477 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:57:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 hHNX5bmKGshL for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:57:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gro.dd.org (gro.dd.org [207.136.192.136]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1841F1200CF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:57:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gro.dd.org (Postfix, from userid 102) id E83C73F442; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:57:36 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <23051.40720.908131.277454@gro.dd.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:57:36 -0500
From: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
To: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+nkc8B1sVhjbn1xYu4rQNgUZGgeaqnVjW=U0nmpRdu6rvXU2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <150940017764.7814.6739838599217498076@ietfa.amsl.com> <23040.33307.69754.133713@gro.dd.org> <23050.45832.787089.325014@gro.dd.org> <CA+nkc8B1sVhjbn1xYu4rQNgUZGgeaqnVjW=U0nmpRdu6rvXU2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/vzrZb74c9rEyIU5I8kYZ8xKFcTY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-00.txt
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:57:39 -0000

Bob Harold writes:
> I am a little concerned about yet another option that the client
> might want to send with every query.  Can the existence of *any*
> EDNS option from the client be taken to mean that EDNS options are
> understood in general, and the resolver is ok to respond with this
> ENDS option, which the client might not understand but will not choke on?

I personally am of the belief that yes, if the request has an OPT then
a responder can include an option code that was not in the request.
At least I don't see anything in 6891 to prohibit it.  This is
behaviour that draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error is also expecting.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email