On 04-01-17 18:11, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 07:50:48PM -0500,
tjw ietf <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote
a message of 114 lines which said:
This starts a Working Group Last Call for
draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any
Since we'll apparently have one more iteration of the draft, one small
detail. The draft says:
I'll add some more feedback for the next iteration, that came up during
a discussion with some colleagues, to make the document more clearer:
1. In section 7, "Updates to RFC 1035" the draft says "ANY does not mean
ALL" and that it is consistent with RFC 1035, while in fact 1035 does
say that QTYPE=* means a request for all records. It would be good to
clarify the statement in section 7 that even if RFC 1035 says that the
ANY query is a request for *all* records, it is not reliable that this
also means you get all records. In other words, the response behavior is
consistent with 1035.
2. "Conventional ANY response" is used but not defined. A line or two
that defines Conventional ANY response to be "a response that includes
all the available records at the QNAME" or something like that would be
a good addition.
3. Insisting that the HINFO OS field SHOULD be empty seems a little too
strong; perhaps it's better to say "The OS field of the HINFO RDATA
SHOULD be short to minimize the size of the response. It MAY be empty or
MAY include a summarized description of local policy." Perhaps even the
keywords can be lowercased?
Furthermore I would be interested in the problems that Cloudflare
encountered when implementing the HINFO response. All I could find in
this thread was "probably a validator will requery with QTYPE=HINFO". Is
that statement based on observations or assumptions?
Best regards,
Matthijs
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
