Re: [DNSOP] CloudFlare policy on ANY records changing

2015-03-14 Thread Florian Weimer
* Evan Hunt: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:38:04PM +, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote: So you're thinking it's more likely that we'll get folks to understand this new type, that's designed to frustrate QTYPE=* queries in a more-or-less graceful way, than it is to convince them to stop making

Re: [DNSOP] CloudFlare policy on ANY records changing

2015-03-14 Thread Florian Weimer
* Tony Finch: Evan Hunt e...@isc.org wrote: This could be a pretty brilliant solution, actually: If you're authoritative for a signed zone and you receive a query of type ANY, return the applicable NSEC/NSEC3; if the zone is *not* signed, synthesize a response containing a single RR

Re: [DNSOP] CloudFlare policy on ANY records changing

2015-03-14 Thread Evan Hunt
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 09:10:03PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: We'd have to be reasonably sure that no resolver treats is as a meta-type and turns the upstream response into a FORMERR upon seeing it in the answer section. “NULLs are used as placeholders in some experimental extensions of the

Re: [DNSOP] CloudFlare policy on ANY records changing

2015-03-14 Thread Florian Weimer
* Evan Hunt: (It doesn't address qmail's problem, but that's a lost cause no matter which method is chosen.) I think it does. qmail already copes correctly with a partially cached ANY response (due to TTL mismatch between RRset), does it? The new behavior just looks like a partially cached

Re: [DNSOP] CloudFlare policy on ANY records changing

2015-03-12 Thread Evan Hunt
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:13:42PM +, Tony Finch wrote: These are signed zones so the answer has to validate. ... they are? I thought the proposal was to restrict/deprecate qtype=ANY for all zones, not just signed ones. -- Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

Re: [DNSOP] CloudFlare policy on ANY records changing

2015-03-12 Thread Florian Weimer
* Tony Finch: I also tried a stupid hack to send an ANY RR in the response. BIND's resolver treats this as a FORMERR and returns SERVFAIL to the client. What about introducing a new non-meta RR type for this purpose? It would not increase the response size by much.

Re: [DNSOP] CloudFlare policy on ANY records changing

2015-03-12 Thread Evan Hunt
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:38:04PM +, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote: So you're thinking it's more likely that we'll get folks to understand this new type, that's designed to frustrate QTYPE=* queries in a more-or-less graceful way, than it is to convince them to stop making QTYPE=* queries in

Re: [DNSOP] CloudFlare policy on ANY records changing

2015-03-11 Thread Tony Finch
Evan Hunt e...@isc.org wrote: On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:13:42PM +, Tony Finch wrote: These are signed zones so the answer has to validate. ... they are? I thought the proposal was to restrict/deprecate qtype=ANY for all zones, not just signed ones. At least some of them are signed

Re: [DNSOP] CloudFlare policy on ANY records changing

2015-03-11 Thread Jared Mauch
On Mar 10, 2015, at 8:05 PM, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote: we are, in this case, defining a protocol. our goal is to get the client to stop asking the ANY question. if we send is a signal that sounds right (REFUSED, for example) but merely has the effect of go to next server then

Re: [DNSOP] CloudFlare policy on ANY records changing

2015-03-11 Thread Paul Vixie
Tony Finch wrote: Evan Hunt e...@isc.org wrote: I'm concerned that a NOERROR/NODATA for qtype=ANY, once cached, would be identical to the cache representation of an empty nonterminal node, and that all subsequent queries for any other qtype would then be answered with the cached

Re: [DNSOP] CloudFlare policy on ANY records changing

2015-03-10 Thread Paul Vixie
Wessels, Duane mailto:dwess...@verisign.com Wednesday, March 11, 2015 6:19 AM As Paul suggests, I'll attempt to redirect the conversation to dnsop. Does it make sense to define an Extended RCODE for additional signaling? e.g. REFUSED_BECAUSE_QTYPE_ANY no, because the problem is with