IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Fri, 17 March 2017 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 60C0412947E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_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 5LkONrA_Ybor for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.142]) (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 4738F12951B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:58902) by ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1coxxQ-000ear-91 (Exim 4.89) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:54:40 +0000
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:54:40 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
cc: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <80ef59d5-a032-df88-98e7-05bdfe7f8b22@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1703171942200.13590@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CADyWQ+GSStfAiOs8R9Ob7+LVh0RAfPQ+AbbTFNuwsrKkO=EUWg@mail.gmail.com> <80ef59d5-a032-df88-98e7-05bdfe7f8b22@nic.cz>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1870870841-1397861325-1489780480=:13590"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/yTHJ1-jEIyPXj-sBbiPPjO4jUhk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any
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: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:54:44 -0000

Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> wrote:
>
> The casse QTYPE=RRSIG should be made more prominent so it is understood
> and not misused as ANY. There are implementations like Knot Resolver
> which are work around missing RRSIG records in replies using
> QTYPE=RRSIG.

Gosh! In what situations do you get missing RRSIGs? Is that not a sign
that either your upstream server doesn't support DO=1, or that you are
under attack from a malefactor / middlebox? Why not re-query a different
upstream server with the full query?

The BIND 9.11 minimal-any implementation treats RRSIG queries similarly to
ANY queries, so it only returns one RRset's RRSIGs (i.e. a subset of the
RRSIGs all with the same type-covered field).

Cloudflare's response to RRSIG queries is REFUSED. Negligible risk of
interop problems in this case, unlike ANY.

I think RRSIG is a diverting sideshow. It might merit a mention in the
abstract but I don't think it needs to be in the title.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
South Fitzroy: Northeasterly 5 or 6, occasionally 7. Moderate or rough. Mainly
fair. Mainly good.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email