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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Fri, 27 February 2015 00:27 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 225751A1A27 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:27:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable
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 A50CXhZ7-Yms for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:27:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2BAA1A1AA2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:26:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF0AF1FCB87; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:26:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5BE4160068; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:33:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c122-106-252-81.belrs3.nsw.optusnet.com.au [122.106.252.81]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CCCD160051; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:33:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A5B2A6ADE8; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:26:50 +1100 (EST)
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
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> <20150225154520.GD3297@mx1.yitter.info>
Subject: Re: [IAB] Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:45:20 -0500." <20150225154520.GD3297@mx1.yitter.info>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:26:49 +1100
Message-Id: <20150227002650.B8A5B2A6ADE8@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vJZaMm0gTQtLKr7Ynwx1Vmkzsbo>
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: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:27:01 -0000

In message <20150225154520.GD3297@mx1.yitter.info>fo>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
> 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,

Well reflecting back the bit isn't permitted and requiring that
such queries get answered are parts of the existing specification
which are not being followed.  Requiring just these parts be correctly
followed will make future deployment easier.

As for the other see draft-andrews-no-response-issue.


> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org