IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 01:45 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 BAB39126D85 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 17:45:29 -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=N8Rv9hX5; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=RUxyvtDi
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 wnwDYjuCcdhM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 17:45:28 -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 680C11274D0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 17:45:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7AF0BF56B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 01:44:51 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1510537491; bh=jQZlefpXJ9V7UxQPUOLDjuYHHGtm/whCvfNyDKAUv+U=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=N8Rv9hX55UfFouYooxK8WA/18Z81JWQOHTp9mbcu2LLoCFiGnIM07RXZEzKWG0Uf7 bmklFAZBs81qsXhXx3hhVCWMuIZI7AAIkvaWx5bJl6vhn0Gm+MxIDYv+LKrQ9qytq5 mehDKT7ZlYurCNIH5qT8OB7/OQx6irH4n2nrzwlc=
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 sy6jv4-nzNOh for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 01:44:50 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:44:46 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1510537490; bh=jQZlefpXJ9V7UxQPUOLDjuYHHGtm/whCvfNyDKAUv+U=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=RUxyvtDieNujz05cKZBswAvROy+rZl14g/9Ubshgg6SaTzPSB2Fx35mAEwAHCWbe8 EkMQ2YIyarsNbS1kb6Vv17ZtVKWXiECPjfHlicj+fAPMko+MjvWoXi7hqBVQsbPyZK Xe+usFVpu0/V5nhp/+wkhJyvb7EEdfEqz2Xl6Fag=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171113014445.ncldrwnuuvluecx7@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <20171112075445.tf2ut5dxzhhnqe7l@mx4.yitter.info> <20171112131831.GA32208@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171112131831.GA32208@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wZXhspEi91VcyvSHT32kN1DeiyQ>
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 01:45:30 -0000

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:18:31PM +0800, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> This is an upward referral and I tought it was frowned upon since the
> ISPrime attack (MUST NOT?  SHOULD NOT?)
> <https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/articles/upward-referrals-considered-harmful>

I tend to agree, but it's certainly something that's around.  Should
we note that clients sometimes ignore such references?  Should we note
that servers often do not return these, though they used to commonly?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email