Wes,
On 10/08/2019 07.30, Wes Hardaker wrote:
8.3.5 NOCHANGE Finally, I note that the suggestion of requiring that the sender
have
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
some signal indicating that it is interested in extended errors was
not adopted. I don't insist on it, but I think it would be useful to
avoid bloating packets unnecessarily. It's a bit like the useless
additional section data that lots of servers insist on appending to
answers... why send something that will not be seen?
OTOH I realize that having this information available may be useful
for humans debugging things, even if the sender does not ask for it.
+ Response: If there sufficient support, we'd certainly add it. This
is primarily intended to be used for extreme cases and only when
problems/unusual are detected. Most DNS messages won't contain EDE
options and when they do they'll likely fall below the DNSSEC
amplification factors that are out there. We think the benefit of
including the extra information outweighs the problems with sending
it. But we'd certainly love to hear more feedback from the
community to see if there is agreement one way or another here.
I guess on balance always having the information is the simplest
approach. If there is a specific concern this can be changed.
8.3.6 NOCHANGE On the gripping hand, adding unasked-for information may have
privacy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
implications. Possibly adding a "Privacy Considerations" section would
be useful?
+ response: What would you like us to add to such a section? The
question/answers section likely has most of the sensitive
information. If you'd provide text to clarify your thinking, we'd
gladly include it.
I looked through RFC 6973 Section 7 -
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6973#section-7 - and didn't see anything
that stuck out obviously to me.
Possibly the only real concern is with extra text. It currently reads:
The UTF-8-encoded, EXTRA-TEXT field may be zero-length, or may hold
additional information useful to network operators.
Quad9's proposal to include various helpful information like how
dangerous a particular answer might be made me think that we should be
careful not to leak information in this channel. For example, a response
should not say something like, "daily query limit reached for account
7452-54".
Possibly the description could be changed to something like:
The UTF-8-encoded, EXTRA-TEXT field may be zero-length, or may hold
additional information useful to network operators. Care should be
take not to leak private information that an observer would not
otherwise have access to, such as account numbers.
Cheers,
--
Shane
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
