Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 01 February 2018 17:32 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 22E4412EB12 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:32:08 -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=AKUORpeZ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=QvWd0Ifx
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 JTM_F3o2I3dr for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:32:06 -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 D711912EBB4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:32:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB71BE072 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:31:30 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1517506290; bh=FjDEYv6EVYgtlU2LdHjdUQGBxNjJlEUfha2d0at5o/Y=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=AKUORpeZiYS7ZxuhGZqhvTg7LYmqcagIHKsVo77Li9c94V3aioisbiQ4TTFPX/seU 8gAdObt5JzbC80g1DgVcc5hAEzm1Y5SU0Za0boPRp3XDmbE/m59Fa7L2rwBdjNF5Im ShloMkcDvOSOWpNAjd0s2ov5aO76XV2Gddmwm94s=
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 CTmE0OGhhvEU for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:31:24 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:31:22 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1517506284; bh=FjDEYv6EVYgtlU2LdHjdUQGBxNjJlEUfha2d0at5o/Y=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=QvWd0IfxqcafewyM5VaDgXymPZ/zxj3rucVnM216cJaj7YYlq1QZu9NJeLdgC/k18 gh4RtReGHbZ/QPy7NEhSrDcnSavzgsrO5Plp0N/YEPNTyB/aSc4sRuaxjEApJz998/ 9Vs120VcPeO4F/+WZl/bj1M5YX1GJoBU4QKPhltY=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180201173122.GE26453@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <9DCE2F63-EE37-4865-B9D6-6B79BBE05593@gmail.com> <20180129155112.GC16545@mx4.yitter.info> <5A6F5CF1.4080706@redbarn.org> <CA+nkc8D7tne5SxGOUhvJqstmDa=1=RmvcHQte1byAab5dUd5sQ@mail.gmail.com> <AE634FC4-0EAF-4F54-8860-61E41284F873@fugue.com> <20180130185919.GJ19193@mx4.yitter.info> <3b57a486-df8e-ca57-ab89-c167cea0dcc9@bellis.me.uk> <5A7218C4.5020301@redbarn.org> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1802011439350.12461@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <5A734A49.9060802@redbarn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5A734A49.9060802@redbarn.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/yt3LMDCx2BNDfLYoeoA8VBH4-Gs>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02
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: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 17:32:08 -0000

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 09:11:37AM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:

> > That's not entirely true - if you are asking an authoritative-only server
> > then you get REFUSED or not depending on whether the QNAME is in an
> > authoritative zone.
> 
> that's what this group has reached consensus on in recent months, yes.

I think I missed that consensus.  I was under the impression that
there was still disagreement about it, but that in any case the answer
should definitely not be RCODE 3.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com