Re: [dnsext] perhaps we should reintroduce "resimprove"

Mohan Parthasarathy <suruti94@gmail.com> Wed, 15 February 2012 20:11 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 20AAF21F862A; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:11:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1329336713; bh=C83IbLPN+yO5/klXRf7yXTQmOsrGAsKTxddwKg1fc3U=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:From:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=lIhJ+NL2V/9bZ24+q+aFov86Kd7Ncl1jXdzQdm96TaYVmDDQkJqhmrX8724V13gPS cewFa5A1GqLmkwEClAjCi+eEnxg/C7QfV0r35+qz00baIOfVxmMmOgK8iFQ//r9XxF 6JtvBEZklbQv/fHUDN/y4po0ICis4fGIBwYK4+WM=
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 A24B221F85ED for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:11:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.471
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.128, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 PSxgopaNYT8B for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:11:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281D321F8631 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:11:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qafi29 with SMTP id i29so3474228qaf.10 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:11:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xR+dSAIPkGlx6aCph1cJ84WClzXaPyfZWDqMKaH1SqM=; b=RiocB6PlIuwOzeX9d2ofmqcdsc7qmw9OV0QqnBrjW2cLjlqYBnkbg7BXza27Uu4yNW vPmpltGciln6iQa8HBPGZaAc1ArzhjtXTDUUI8JARFo2k/12z356c6BRCGTaMsCWU/wj jU/VBxHDIlakVMiL7CCUmtAdu+glCTpn1QznI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.78.215 with SMTP id m23mr16247043qck.93.1329336688428; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:11:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.159.17 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:11:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4F33E1A6.4030902@isc.org>
References: <4F33E1A6.4030902@isc.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:11:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CACU5sDnS1L0Tyd4S38uU78nMDpuC8tBgYM+3jwrmFDCTBjMhDg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mohan Parthasarathy <suruti94@gmail.com>
To: paul vixie <vixie@isc.org>
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] perhaps we should reintroduce "resimprove"
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:09 AM, paul vixie <vixie@isc.org> wrote:
> based on the renewed interest in the delegation and glue ttl problem
> caused by the "ghost domains" paper, i looked again at:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vixie-dnsext-resimprove-00
>
> ...which i presented in prague about a year ago. the sticking point was:
>
>    B. Stopping a downward cache search when an NXDOMAIN is encountered.
>
> and all of section 3. this proposal was considered controversial since
> two existing implementation (rbldnsd and tinydns) currently send
> nxdomain when queried for an empty nonterminal domain name. i did not
> agree that this was a problem since RBL DNS queries are always full
> length (that is, for all octets or all nybbles of an inverted host
> address) and since the DNSSEC specification clarified non-terminal names
> as existing but empty.
>
RFC 4035, "3.1.3.2.  Including NSEC RRs: Name Error Response" has the
following text towards the end:

   Note that this form of response includes cases in which SNAME
   corresponds to an empty non-terminal name within the zone (a name
   that is not the owner name for any RRset but that is the parent name
   of one or more RRsets).

I don't see anything clarified in the dnssec-bis-updates document
regarding this. Could you clarify what you meant by "DNSSEC
specification clarified non-terminal names as existing but empty" ?

thanks
mohan


> i now propose that we dust off this draft, remove (B) and section 3, and
> progress it not as an improvement but as a security and resiliency
> requirement (so, a proposed standard) in the face of the "ghost domain"
> problem.
>
> i may yet reintroduce the NXDOMAIN matter but i don't think that we
> should logjam on it any further.
>
> with five shows of support i would consider the editorial work involved
> here to be worth doing.
>
> paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext