IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07.txt> (Providing Minimal-Sized Responses to DNS Queries that have QTYPE=ANY) to Proposed Standard

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 21 August 2018 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC196130F80; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 9oj88GKFi-RF; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (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 B39FD130FCB; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id j205-v6so33324313oib.4; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=r0hFV741lQ6YCw2KGWvQ9WazCKTEZnV8s4lVtZSNsxs=; b=OTYzJaQVd1ZzFkrxEaa56BcbY0ZjWO7lCRtxIW0an+Y6AoRCA34sgZuGduNJ2mwIht taMnvwL9Ue9VCjf+IYKRACbEAVgHmaoE1mi7BWfDNMKX0lK2IYKWweOUdYC/3CFUffpj f+CXw2Wq+N9cL+kBbkkQh+TaF/PqKfdC6IctUNVdQNmJPtay9b9NCDpbNardsO0Y4OF9 Q5Anwdj6CkqGDg6SA9AeakT/Ud9hltCoN2ivExFv1lBk4C0Tvb6lLg2tVXNma9uUuu35 H5Kc+UCWtijMX7TDpneqZhxDnekfV65Zu9OxHwm+DbYO5fnQ9Mfe5X4Lv/FO9g6LWlzY 4ivQ==
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=r0hFV741lQ6YCw2KGWvQ9WazCKTEZnV8s4lVtZSNsxs=; b=FHT98LuV/Eb0FVrQyzoSncukScjQM08EKFR8GiPw9RVJCfAJPnI1ibSB60sr1poYnG XEJw1DfhQiCOI6sMRozs9qwHZclg5jjlnytDR0ZOvK13i8v4hFZPCfiYPG39MVyQMGAM 9lbER0w4uYLpxzURX6rsrOkcWnLqf+hIuhQ7fikKJiMLDFrVbiBH+Enry06+51Y93fSt 8W6HT9VPCz2+n01x1m8MvZtMvfbPOImCVgLHbXNuQLl9c7oGVus01nwe2aGVJP3GwZ7p odQx1Y1DkBJk45p9av+9sycnV/41uAZ83WIJcuFFYc6k4d7YRSZOoS34WLcTWYWIgzrz aYow==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51CJFSB0IcOoQzMVe8yLesMCyp4A4Ofk9WgtX4Z/ou9Dmi37Syq2 UocU3u9SlJDLJFPDGFJmMKMwvpswEzSUmnn0aLIueg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZnC3re6xkSQV0LroJLRI9kp7l5Zww6jppVKnQ+AQABxlbbX9vWc+0glraEK05RN9onZpv6B4ZUJR8HH45ig0Y=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:684c:: with SMTP id d73-v6mr155898oic.341.1534871342587; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4a:66ca:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1808211302580.20934@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <153486715184.9380.13157158969854115906.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+9kkMCp3e8SPwLdFHjDjPWRPrNMwdO8SqtGA1Zfm=GBTBjaPA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN6NTqyD4AOSHXWB1GMmFbEwuP9h2Q0Q7JN7=EWxojnzbey8gA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1808211302580.20934@bofh.nohats.ca>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:08:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMB6VP_O+ogORzbTfKruR-u53z2aKGSxPYUx4Rn1v=Nz=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07.txt> (Providing Minimal-Sized Responses to DNS Queries that have QTYPE=ANY) to Proposed Standard
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: Ólafur Guðmundsson <olafur=40cloudflare.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any@ietf.org, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, dnsop-chairs <dnsop-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000026a66e0573f515ce"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Ho0QcEhmD1zu7WKPrL4CqqBhyTw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 17:09:18 -0000

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
>
> Ted, Would it be acceptable to just do
>> s/TCP/Connection oriented Transport/
>>
>
> For RFC 7901 we used "source-IP-verified transport"
>
>
If this is the only characteristic that the working group believes will
cause variance in ANY responses, then reusing this terminology seems fine.
I suspect, however, that it is not  the only characteristic that will in
practice.  I can easily imagine cases where ANY returns full answers when
the transport is confidential and minimal ones when it is not.

I have absolutely no data to back this intuition, though, so I will
understand if the working group and authors disagree.

regards,

Ted Hardie


> Paul
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email