Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Tue, 14 November 2017 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <each@isc.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 3856312869B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:53:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 yqfZxLxvtSM4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:53:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (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 42C7F12009C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:53:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61A193B8594; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:53:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id 4C450216C1C; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:53:00 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:53:00 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171114175300.GA45323@isc.org>
References: <20171113014445.ncldrwnuuvluecx7@mx4.yitter.info> <5A08FD96.8030907@redbarn.org> <20171113020736.ga7rzgst2hurb56h@mx4.yitter.info> <5A09068A.3030206@redbarn.org> <20171113032640.tbn7icsllm6jeeny@mx4.yitter.info> <5A09C4D6.6080202@redbarn.org> <20171114063209.gjubqyovnwcrl33a@mx4.yitter.info> <5A0A952F.1060001@redbarn.org> <20171114080638.GA41253@isc.org> <5A0AA777.9010908@redbarn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5A0AA777.9010908@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/zMrr4tTnhnqUh8_oIglQSKAWb4k>
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:53:04 -0000

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:21:11AM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
> i mean propagating REFUSED back to the stub so that it can return an 
> error to its application or user.

Okay. I haven't encountered a resolver that propgates REFUSED from the
authority to the stub.  If there is such a beast, then IMHO that, not the
authority, is the one that's mis-using REFUSED; REFUSED only makes sense on
a hop-by-hop basis.

-- 
Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.