Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-16
Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Sat, 28 January 2012 05:20 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 DC36021F85BD; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:20:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1327728058; bh=cf1jCpunOYyqXV5Aix+sK+e2/8sloadHTTXiZz4r0Vc=; 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=RKO7qNsiqA03r2CwJfodXB+bfPtAx2H/BFFvFdZcAZxr1TCfVpkXt7kMe2SA4Y7Qq q9TD3KP/X1+m3DKDn6EN/otHfeeROwlVjkg9SZ4ZPQ56K4kSrjV0VvQKyqTjIs3l/g AW7qlg5COZeW8Y7XX8zaTZ/aYKvm9cDmFGaw8lBw=
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 72D2B21F85BD for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:20:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.503
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, 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 oPGc9Zzufhnx for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:20:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D1FF21F8584 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:20:55 -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.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 137C55F98A2; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:20:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:2d63:f876:b008:591a]) (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 DCBEB216C6B; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:20:32 +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 618CE1C32BFA; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:20:29 +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>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:21:35 -0800." <CACU5sDnS-3V26yKyvTGObR67H2LPiBjWxCZAbMpHPZrgXJeNFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:20:29 +1100
Message-Id: <20120128052029.618CE1C32BFA@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 <CACU5sDnS-3V26yKyvTGObR67H2LPiBjWxCZAbMpHPZrgXJeNFg@mail.gmail.com> , Mohan Parthasarathy writes: > - Section 5.7 setting the AD bit on queries. Is CD=0,DO=0 in the query > same as AD=1,DO=0 ? The question doesn't make sense. AD=0,DO=1 and AD=1,DO=1 produce the same result. AD=0,DO=0 and AD=1,DO=0 produce different results. AD=0,DO=0 and AD=0,DO=1 produce different results. AD=1,DO=0 and AD=0,DO=1 produce different results. > missed the discussion on this earlier. If there is a valid reason, > that needs to be stated explicitly as to why we are introducing this > new option. Section 5.7 explains why this option exists. This allows a requestor to indicate that it understands the AD bit without also requesting DNSSEC data via the DO bit. Examples of AD=1 vs DO=1. % dig +adflag soa . +noauth +noadd ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3-P3 <<>> +adflag soa . +noauth +noadd ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 41997 ;; flags: qr rd ra ad; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;. IN SOA ;; ANSWER SECTION: . 86382 IN SOA a.root-servers.net. nstld.verisign-grs.com. 2012012701 1800 900 604800 86400 ;; Query time: 2 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Sat Jan 28 16:03:34 2012 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 285 % dig +dnssec soa . +noauth +noadd ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3-P3 <<>> +dnssec soa . +noauth +noadd ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 61859 ;; flags: qr rd ra ad; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 14, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 4096 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;. IN SOA ;; ANSWER SECTION: . 86372 IN SOA a.root-servers.net. nstld.verisign-grs.com. 2012012701 1800 900 604800 86400 . 86372 IN RRSIG SOA 8 0 86400 20120203000000 20120126230000 51201 . nhFWtVAAdecUyYiGqvYYLprczaXbhsR+XK2S+OPBrBWMAk9fPyNjRH7A rSu7I1qIBNstxAlUJ/ncn+lL5o88wDD2PZW4GXolzFc3LslvmyEcEhVe wHhPETDJEsR9rrpx1yt1o5EqhjzBrQNT4FPbmqse0z+r9v9uPCZlB+KQ OvE= ;; Query time: 1 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Sat Jan 28 16:03:44 2012 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 612 % -- 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
- [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updat… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Edward Lewis
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… W.C.A. Wijngaards
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mohan Parthasarathy
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mohan Parthasarathy
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mohan Parthasarathy
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Warren Kumari
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Michael StJohns
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Matthijs Mekking
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Blacka, David
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mohan Parthasarathy
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-u… Mark Andrews