Re: [DNSOP] Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com> Mon, 19 March 2018 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <matt@conundrum.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 800E312DA03 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=conundrum-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 hliGvobHdnm1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x232.google.com (mail-it0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A233712025C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x232.google.com with SMTP id w3-v6so11841505itc.4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=conundrum-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=z6S2z+Nsw58E5vWIi7MnMEJn5vlT8cUYY1TK9tHY8qI=; b=ydHSiHtUPV5sdbllo7z8A4hcWnFC2vBdKvSMJkd1CNHM4bElg1GdMeejIdSHcKEgVB 25MATYuzWZRrwY2MDvdHfaIdBCtBE4GgzOVP9aFvY32px4HZTDOm/NaY3OtR2rPcqRNg 6S6010AUGCbOnBawEkTFoo9YfjlxvfrkQOJq4JFi1VY3+38vUnHlgh51KsmkeP1J5m0I MWLgeKfLxYAFduppLUod+XoXgBX+T6cGo6dFvPwmYbCipJ41z6sx6QesfHBTnc2kVYSn pAKVbY5jSsI6boY82NK8vNuXxiS/zhKQ4JC6Qkh17pvm5VOBlhT8VuOefqqwqFarsiCs IXmQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=z6S2z+Nsw58E5vWIi7MnMEJn5vlT8cUYY1TK9tHY8qI=; b=Zs3Zh12ZlFN3KzHIbHnzGwSpxw2D5x6qtePoF8Zf7cAoUM7zt+u8Wgy5xGnnuoAPl/ 5N0G2bLRqA6ZMkxc8G88uFOYp8an4nmdj8UHGZXxxpNyGK/NjdUu+I98L/HPetYf4/M7 wimv2LDzjAvajloSUnjInfEHNsx7iQZFWELatHkY4x55QSyUzYCNyAa5RGK8dHIs8+71 X8eyX3x9eaXaa6TUYsk22Nacy4bGLierWsO2/uPdOabVxvavhZzoJkVsf/UVrTQnCqTq I7nE2UNSHm07zSJByLCzcV1S5aFzg828DUVx+kV0I4xPZAYByikHq6i/6J8xd3ozU+aj /tQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7ENjpPu16nPZNgpk3Wib+OWQ5QHMpRU3izQkGWBvd+sOAGu7YT5 1/6Gdtkjq/iuUxI6pY0SlXL2XjiHvRHlpEhtbKHrIqvB
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuNdvDadCZTLckzQU5/tjamlHOAjdHSva95T7Y40Is1SGntlhKF3bU8/roRKCPY2isXIaKNQz/1enbSQZCLnUM=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:cd45:: with SMTP id l66-v6mr14005577itg.151.1521486483611; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.2.112.197 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <22fe4a5c-fcd5-50fd-71da-d714d8f31fe5@pletterpet.nl>
References: <7C873271-A784-4594-91A3-48C697EEC613@vpnc.org> <22fe4a5c-fcd5-50fd-71da-d714d8f31fe5@pletterpet.nl>
From: Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 15:08:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAiTEH_khA7H=HsRZnWYhfnmk89WupizcrDSkLFSWipSBD0swQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000633df10567c8adbc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/zROG7psk4aw4cYLy8486zsk99gA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis
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, 19 Mar 2018 19:08:08 -0000

On 19 March 2018 at 08:21, Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>; wrote:

> I and some others have been using the term 'Negative response' to indicate
> that the response does not contain any records in the Answer section.
> Current definition seems to imply that this is only the case if the RCODE
> is NXDOMAIN, NOERROR, SERVFAIL or if there was a timeout (unreachable). The
> definition I have been using includes responses with other RCODEs too, for
> example FORMERR or REFUSED.


> I wonder if this is just me and my bubble or if others also a slightly
> different meaning of 'Negative response' as it is defined now. If there are
> others, is it worth spending a line or two about this here?
>

I would suggest that only NXDOMAIN and NOERROR+ANCOUNT=0 are negative
responses.   SERVFAIL, FORMERR, and REFUSED are error responses; you do not
know as a result of those responses whether the name/type tuple queried
about exists.