Re: [DNSOP] RCODE and CNAME chain

2017-04-27 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , Florian Weimer writes: > On 04/27/2017 11:31 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > If you want to advocate for changes to behaviour that is fine, but > > advocate for that. Just saying "shouldn't the rcode be NOERROR" > > isn't doing that. Then there is DNSSEC. If the target zone is > > sig

Re: [DNSOP] RCODE and CNAME chain

2017-04-27 Thread Florian Weimer
On 04/27/2017 11:31 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: If you want to advocate for changes to behaviour that is fine, but advocate for that. Just saying "shouldn't the rcode be NOERROR" isn't doing that. Then there is DNSSEC. If the target zone is signed and DO=1 is set in the query should you include th

Re: [DNSOP] RCODE and CNAME chain

2017-04-27 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , =?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFbEjWVsw6Fr?= writes: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > In message com> > > , =?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFbEjWVsw6Fr?= writes: > >> Hello, > >> > >> sorry for resurrecting this thread, but this really caught my attention. > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017

Re: [DNSOP] RCODE and CNAME chain

2017-04-27 Thread Jan Včelák
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message > > , =?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFbEjWVsw6Fr?= writes: >> Hello, >> >> sorry for resurrecting this thread, but this really caught my attention. >> >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Peter van Dijk wrote: >> > On 5 Apr 2017, at 7:43, Mukund S

Re: [DNSOP] RCODE and CNAME chain

2017-04-26 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , =?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFbEjWVsw6Fr?= writes: > Hello, > > sorry for resurrecting this thread, but this really caught my attention. > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > On 5 Apr 2017, at 7:43, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > >> Evan just pointed out a case due to a system

Re: [DNSOP] RCODE and CNAME chain

2017-04-26 Thread Jan Včelák
Hello, sorry for resurrecting this thread, but this really caught my attention. On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Peter van Dijk wrote: > On 5 Apr 2017, at 7:43, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: >> Evan just pointed out a case due to a system test failure that is >> interesting.. it's not clear what the beh

Re: [DNSOP] RCODE and CNAME chain

2017-04-05 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <20170405054338.GA15831@jurassic>, Mukund Sivaraman writes: > Evan just pointed out a case due to a system test failure that is > interesting.. it's not clear what the behavior should be in this case, > so please discuss: > > There's a nameserver that's authoritative for 2 zones exampl

Re: [DNSOP] RCODE and CNAME chain

2017-04-05 Thread Peter van Dijk
Hello Mukund, On 5 Apr 2017, at 7:43, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > Evan just pointed out a case due to a system test failure that is > interesting.. it's not clear what the behavior should be in this case, > so please discuss: > > There's a nameserver that's authoritative for 2 zones example.org. an

Re: [DNSOP] RCODE and CNAME chain

2017-04-04 Thread Mukund Sivaraman
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:13:38AM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > It seems to me that it should be NOERROR(1) because RFC 1035 defines s/NOERROR(1)/NOERROR(0)/ > NXDOMAIN as "this code signifies that the domain name referenced in the > query does not exist" which in my interpretation doesn't ma

[DNSOP] RCODE and CNAME chain

2017-04-04 Thread Mukund Sivaraman
Evan just pointed out a case due to a system test failure that is interesting.. it's not clear what the behavior should be in this case, so please discuss: There's a nameserver that's authoritative for 2 zones example.org. and example.com. In the example.org. zone, foo.example.org. is CNAME to ba