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

On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:09 AM, paul vixie 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.
> 
> 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.

I am no longer sure who the five were, but I was not one of them, you now have 6.

I would be more than happy to contribute / edit / review / whatever is needed to progress it. I think this is a very useful draft…

W

> 
> paul
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
> 

--
Don't be impressed with unintelligible stuff said condescendingly.
    -- Radia Perlman.

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext