IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IAB] Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 25 February 2015 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE0961A90D7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 07:45:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=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 Di2zjcS9m-T3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 07:45:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03BE11A90D6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 07:45:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [50.189.173.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF0E58A031; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:45:21 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:45:20 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Subject: Re: [IAB] Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice
Message-ID: <20150225154520.GD3297@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <20140520204238.21772.64347.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <500031A0-DF45-409E-AACB-F79C32032E38@viagenie.ca> <94F2C35A-95D1-41CA-9CA5-2F7D59111E0B@vpnc.org> <20150221205119.F30E02A0BA40@rock.dv.isc.org> <19332445E29DABDB188C589E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <20150223004033.726752A206EE@rock.dv.isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150223004033.726752A206EE@rock.dv.isc.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OHM-YiB4A0qYXcxW5KaBm8VLlPU>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, IAB <iab@iab.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:45:24 -0000

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:40:32AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:

> them harder to use in the future.  RFC 103[45] doesn't say what to
> do when the last reserved bit is used.  Today we have queries
> dropped, FORMERR'd, REFUSED'd, NOTIMP'd, and ignored.  I really
> don't care if the response is FORMERR, NOTIMP or ignored but we
> should choose one and stomp out the others so that when we decide
> to use the bit we don't have the mess [1] we had with the other
> bits.

If that is something you want, this document is certainly not the
place to do it.  That's a protocol specification change, and this
document is not altering the DNS protocol in any way.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email