Re: [DNSOP] 4035 3.1.4.1 erratum? dig ds root-servers.net @X.root-servers.net

There is NOTHING to accept here.  The instructions are correct.

e.root-servers.net is just broken and if all the root servers returned
referrals like this the DS lookup from a STD13 server would result in
all the root servers being queries and eventually SERVFAIL being return
to the client.

Mark

> On 11 Jan 2018, at 7:30 am, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Peter van Dijk
> <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> wrote:
>> Output edited for brevity:
>> 
>> $ dig ds root-servers.net @d.root-servers.net
>> 
>> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 17643
>> ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1
>> ;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available
>> 
>> ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
>> ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
>> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
>> ;root-servers.net.              IN      DS
>> 
>> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
>> root-servers.net.       3600000 IN      SOA     a.root-servers.net.
>> nstld.verisign-grs.com. 2017111600 14400 7200 1209600 3600000
>> 
>> $ dig ds root-servers.net @e.root-servers.net
>> 
>> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 26972
>> ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: 27
>> ;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available
>> 
>> ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
>> ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
>> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
>> ;root-servers.net.              IN      DS
>> 
>> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
>> net.                    172800  IN      NS      a.gtld-servers.net.
>> net.                    172800  IN      NS      b.gtld-servers.net.
>> .. ..
>> 
>> ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
>> a.gtld-servers.net.     172800  IN      A       192.5.6.30
>> b.gtld-servers.net.     172800  IN      A       192.33.14.30
>> .. ..
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> When running the query in the Subject, these are the two possible outputs I
>> have observed from various root servers (with some variation from the same
>> letter, presumably because of dual vendor strategies).
>> 
>> From 4035 3.1.4.1, the NODATA response should be sent when:
>> 
>>   o  The name server has received a query for the DS RRset at a zone
>>      cut.
>> 
>>   o  The name server is authoritative for the child zone.
>> 
>>   o  The name server is not authoritative for the parent zone.
>> 
>>   o  The name server does not offer recursion.
>> 
>> 
>> Points 1, 2 and 4 are clear. It is point 3 that hurts here. The root servers
>> are authoritative for root-servers.net. and for . , but not for net - and
>> they know this because they can see the delegation in the root zone.
>> 
>> It is my suspicion that 3.1.4.1 was not written with this edge case in mind,
>> and I think that while 3.1.4.1 favours the NODATA response, the referral is
>> much more useful. As a data point, the PowerDNS validator currently gets in
>> trouble with the NODATA response:
>> https://github.com/PowerDNS/pdns/issues/6138
>> 
>> I think an erratum to 4035 is in order, clarifying the language such that
>> servers would return the referral in this case. I have not figured out the
>> exact wording yet (but I will).
>> 
> 
> Errata are for fixing bugs ("Errata are meant to fix "bugs" in the
> specification and should not be used to change what the community
> meant when it approved the RFC." -
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html), not for
> updating documents to add functionality / address cases which were not
> originally considered (of course, that page does also say: "Common
> sense and good judgment should be used by the IESG to decide what is
> the right thing to do." :-))
> 
> So, if / when this is reported, please help me justify this as a bug
> fix, and not adding functionality / changing the meaning of the
> original doc.
> 
> W
> 
> 
>> What does dnsop think?
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> --
>> Peter van Dijk
>> PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>   ---maf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org