IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 29 November 2017 12:21 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 EE4991270AE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 04:21:34 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-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=mwslBl7F; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=KnRcSinG
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 0pAno6Jsad8j for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 04:21:34 -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 E73C4120725 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 04:21:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579BDBD337 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:21:03 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1511958063; bh=TI7VLKFVEEhbQ0QgOlRzR80FlmQgLxFrE0qvzZp14gw=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mwslBl7FJConHWdmTNVAOFqbYmRPwRdhm14j5LAioppiCaUGgTNJFaz8mL3lb7li6 fschTW8d0bNZOW3d38Ls0CyGL+b33F8vdl/Z4fC5oQDN6gHJDC4kCSQWipj8obWMTX EqGiacskQBSQi5qT0sI2mqr6sRShHv3OE1uD85TQ=
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 wVO7bJlpNiOC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:21:02 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 07:21:01 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1511958062; bh=TI7VLKFVEEhbQ0QgOlRzR80FlmQgLxFrE0qvzZp14gw=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=KnRcSinGV5CPwAixpy4yZnIrifMVPqdvgp4HXxOVJTx7nrOFA1mPBTq4hpmpbb7S8 BoCrmaGz8iDIvihP6yenXshAkAlfLxydhgA0nqNfS2AVGdvlDF06ccOgWYCRpgX/Ew fhH4xBFVHZVZvPcbaqufGqbsLlhj5IGNlbQXeIiU=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171129122101.mv7zlc6kdqe3ojnv@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <20171112075445.tf2ut5dxzhhnqe7l@mx4.yitter.info> <20171128195025.ifzwsjk42wz7ard6@mx4.yitter.info> <5A1DEEE1.3070809@redbarn.org> <20171129014748.7rrm2tvwdnjdl6ss@mx4.yitter.info> <5A1E2491.9070805@redbarn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5A1E2491.9070805@redbarn.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xnbtNfkMUWonsf80blgN2WeLccg>
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:21:35 -0000

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 07:08:01PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
> that's fatally unclear.

So I gather :)

> then the thing to say would be "a referral should always be downward, and if
> a non-downward referral is received, it should be treated as a network data
> configuration error".

No, that is attempting to define away other kinds of referrals, which
is precisely the discussion we were previously having (and why Joe and
I wrote that other draft).  The terminology draft should not, in my
opinion, attempt to change any RFC; and, IMO, 1034 defines referrals
in such a way that someone _could_ think that upward referrals are
sometimes a normal part of operation.  If we want to change the advice
of what to do there, I think a different document is needed.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email