[DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any - why not NOTIMP?

Having looked at this a few months ago when one of our partners was (briefly) returning NOTIMP for ANY queries, I find myself wondering why this isn't discussed in the draft? The draft does talk about *new* RCODEs, but not existing ones. My reading of RFC 1035 is that it would be a perfectly

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

On 24.7.2017 15:43, Tony Finch wrote: > Peter van Dijk wrote: >> >> One could make $GENERATE more efficient without actually implementing >> the BULK RR, by taking your pattern matching logic and implementing it >> inside the name server. > > Andrew Sullivan was

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any: points from Petr Špaček

On 26.7.2017 12:56, Tony Finch wrote: > Joe Abley 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

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any - why not NOTIMP?

This was the original proposal, the drawback is that resolvers to not cache the answer, and to make things worse they ask ALL NS addresses for listed domain thus it acts as a DDoS against the domain in question. Olafur On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: >

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any - why not NOTIMP?

On 07/08/2017 16:44, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote: > This was the original proposal, > the drawback is that resolvers to not cache the answer, and to make > things worse they ask ALL NS addresses for listed domain > thus it acts as a DDoS against the domain in question. Indeed - I've since

Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Mike West wrote: > > I poked at the draft a bit over the weekend, reworking it into a > stand-alone document in https://tools.ietf.org/ > html/draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost-04. I think it ends up being > clearer overall, and hopefully

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any - why not NOTIMP?

On 8/7/17, 11:45, "DNSOP on behalf of Ray Bellis" wrote: >On 07/08/2017 16:44, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote: > >> This was the original proposal, >> the drawback is that resolvers to not cache the answer, and to make >>

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any - why not NOTIMP?

Ray Bellis wrote: ... returning NOTIMP for ANY queries, ... ... My reading of RFC 1035 is that it would be a perfectly appropriate response from a server that doesn't support ANY. the RFC was treated as a general guideline by most implementers, and once the code for some client or server

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any - why not NOTIMP?

Ray Bellis wrote: ... returning NOTIMP for ANY queries, ... ... My reading of RFC 1035 is that it would be a perfectly appropriate response from a server that doesn't support ANY. the RFC was treated as a general guideline by most implementers, and once the code for some client or server