IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-16

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Mon, 30 January 2012 03:30 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F8A21F8526; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:30:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1327894224; bh=QGVvi/M/OaBnKezeBYiGy98nlXAntYCTUx8LjIndnDk=; h=To:From:References:In-reply-to:Date:Message-Id:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=uBvDE7AS+UgY+vNlMW4/l9OnHt2mo/evD8ZKCWX81XGgVr6ScOJRwtx+BsEO2s5V4 mFpSlGH/ytzJ9jmO/OpBH76vPo98YYLtixcIk6jluTeqnVneBoO56vtnRto2039nAt q0gc+HWaVBXSdqY1NtX+xD41IRjlDdgw60u5kOL4=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783B621F850F for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:30:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZRixD4leGBti for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:30:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39C821F8503 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:30:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78DE3C9425; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:30:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:6d48:c4cd:82ef:670]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29510216C6B; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:30:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65DEB1C470D3; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:29:54 +1100 (EST)
To: Mohan Parthasarathy <suruti94@gmail.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20120120054939.GD4365@mail.yitter.info> <CACU5sDnS-3V26yKyvTGObR67H2LPiBjWxCZAbMpHPZrgXJeNFg@mail.gmail.com> <20120128052029.618CE1C32BFA@drugs.dv.isc.org> <CACU5sD=P-agE2oOqvAiCs=bcX3Off6cCubW-f=skKP54-1oQaQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120128134331.819221C33944@drugs.dv.isc.org> <CACU5sDnuW7hUkYAoyyBY=W2yN0EgYiuX3wY8gBryDGN5LxUkSw@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:12:14 -0800." <CACU5sDnuW7hUkYAoyyBY=W2yN0EgYiuX3wY8gBryDGN5LxUkSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:29:54 +1100
Message-Id: <20120130032954.65DEB1C470D3@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cc: DNSEXT Working Group <dnsext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-16
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

In message <CACU5sDnuW7hUkYAoyyBY=W2yN0EgYiuX3wY8gBryDGN5LxUkSw@mail.gmail.com>
, Mohan Parthasarathy writes:
> >> My question was more on what prompted the addition of this new feature ?
> >
> > 1. It reduces the response size.
> > 2. You can apply DNS64, NXDOMAIN redirection, bad site filtering, etc. with
> > AD=1 which you can't with DO=1.
> 
> Why does the extra DNSSEC records affect DNS64 ?

Because, despite what Section 3 of RFC 6147 says, you can't divine
intent from DO and CD and applying DNS64 synthesis to DO=1,CD=0 is
just as bad as applying DNS64 synthesis to DO=1,CD=1.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email