Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization
Ray Bellis wrote: Right, NXDOMAIN returned by some broken implementation to empty non-terminals MUST NOT be interpreted that the terminals does not exist. Can we name and shame these broken implementations? I don't know about a specific example. But, considering that people here was having lengthy debates on how should the response to empty non-terminals until I pointed out relevant part of rfc1034 means there should have been, and, more importantly, will again be, some. It would be a massive shame if this important and useful clarification to DNS semantics couldn't be used just because of a few broken implementations. It is clearly specified in rfc1034: The domain name space is a tree structure. Each node and leaf on the tree corresponds to a resource set (which may be empty). Masataka Ohta ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization
On 21 Oct 2014, at 11:11, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote: It is clearly specified in rfc1034: The domain name space is a tree structure. Each node and leaf on the tree corresponds to a resource set (which may be empty). That’s a matter of interpretation. To me, that _clearly_ indicates that the name exists (given that the “label” is a property of the node, which clearly does exists) and therefore that NXDOMAIN is inappropriate. Ray ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization
Adopt it. Then argue about it. I think it is worthwhile to talk about. IMHO it isn’t a protocol change, but a change to how a recursive element looks for an answer in the existing protocol. On Oct 20, 2014, at 17:30, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote: there's a cart/horse proble in this thread. right now we're arguing whether to adopt it. if we adopt it then its goods and bads will become relevant. that said: Bob Harold Monday, October 20, 2014 2:03 PM I support the idea of qname minimization, but I think there is a common case where it will cause additional DNS round trips, slowing the response and increasing the number of packets and queries the servers must handle. i argue that caching will equalize these logic paths over a very short stretch of wall time. -- Paul Vixie ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization
Ray Bellis wrote: To me, that _clearly_ indicates that the name exists (given that the “label” is a property of the node, which clearly does exists) and therefore that NXDOMAIN is inappropriate. Yes, it is, even for those who debated a lot here without reading rfc1034 or those who read the rfc so long ago that they don't remember its content, but only after the text is presented to them. The problem is that, for those who don't fully understand/remember DNS, empty non terminals can be a pitfall with high probability, against which new proposals should be protected. Masataka Ohta ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
