On 26.7.2017 12:56, Tony Finch wrote:
> Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>> If anybody else here has thoughts about specific text or violent
>> objections to including QTYPE=RRSIG in general, please let me know (I
>> looked in the mail archive but couldn't find any there).
> I think it's helpful to mention RRSIG explicitly since it isn't
> immediately obvious that it's a stealth ANY query. (It becomes
> apparent to implementers fairly rapidly tho!)
>> As we discuss (see Stephane's points) in the case of multiple
>> transports, perhaps we can also recommend that implementors provide
>> configuration options to allow administrators to deal with ANY, RRSIG,
>> neither or both. That way we get flexibility that matches deployment,
>> but we also get a reference for handling RRSIG in a predictable way.
> I think the draft should recommend a simple on/off switch and describe
> sensible behaviour when it is on. Mainly because I think we know what
> that sensible behaviour is, and I don't think it's a big enough feature
> to deserve a lot of configuration and documentation complexity.

I agree with Tony that we know what that sensible behaviour is so, with
my implementor hat on, I would be perfectly happy with
implementation-specific behavior with no knobs at all. If you don't like
it, feel free to pick another implementation.

Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC

> Having said that, the initiator side (section 5) needs a bit of work.
> Something like,
>    ANY queries SHOULD be sent using the same choice of transport as other
>    queries (typically, try UDP first, and only use TCP if the response is
>    truncated). As an exception, debugging and diagnostics tools MAY have
>    a special case for ANY queries.
> (bleeding-edge versions of `dig` use TCP for ANY)
> Tony.

DNSOP mailing list

Reply via email to