Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

Mark Andrews wrote: See RFC 1034, Section 4.3.2. Algorithm. More explicit explanation on difference is in 1035: NS records cause both the usual additional section processing to locate a type A record, and, when used in a referral, a special search of the zone in which they reside

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

> On 8 Jul 2020, at 11:23, John Levine wrote: > > In article <45b4c5a5-7bca-3515-c5a5-3c470be15...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> > you write: >> You should misunderstand 2181. Putting glue is not additional >> section processing. > > Uh, what? > > Searching for either NS or MX records

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

In article <45b4c5a5-7bca-3515-c5a5-3c470be15...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> you write: >You should misunderstand 2181. Putting glue is not additional >section processing. Uh, what? Searching for either NS or MX records causes "additional section processing" in which address records

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

Paul Hoffman wrote: RFCs 1035 and 2181 give mixed messages about incomplete RRsets. They don't. You should misunderstand 2181. Putting glue is not additional section processing. Masataka Ohta

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

On Jul 4, 2020, at 3:58 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > On Thursday, 2 July 2020 14:50:24 UTC John R Levine wrote: >> >> Well, maybe. Even if you got one A record there might be others. > > no. truncation is on RRset boundaries. even in a truncated response, RRsets > are never broken up. if you

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 09:19:48PM -0400, John R Levine wrote: > > Uh, no. The TC flag means "something didn't fit". > > It is not restricted to glue, which is only in the additional section. > > TC can also be set if something from the authority section didn't fit, or > > if something didn't fit

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

Uh, no. The TC flag means "something didn't fit". It is not restricted to glue, which is only in the additional section. TC can also be set if something from the authority section didn't fit, or if something didn't fit in the answer section. (Obviously it would be the first section where

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 3:03 PM John R Levine wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jul 2020, Brian Dickson wrote: > > It makes clear the difference between implied and inferred. > > The flag clearly indicates that some glue which would otherwise be > > considered necessary has not been sent. > > That sounds a lot

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

On Fri, 3 Jul 2020, Brian Dickson wrote: It makes clear the difference between implied and inferred. The flag clearly indicates that some glue which would otherwise be considered necessary has not been sent. That sounds a lot like the TC flag. I realize that some people have interpreted the

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM John Levine wrote: > In article < > cah1icirmlslmohchqcvqis6ra0myk40ejsdm_b5pmxagxrn...@mail.gmail.com> you > write: > >There are a whole bunch of unused bits in the core element of the OPT RR > >(the place where the DO bit exists). That would be an excellent

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

In article you write: >There are a whole bunch of unused bits in the core element of the OPT RR >(the place where the DO bit exists). That would be an excellent (IMHO) >place to signal the situation here (partial glue truncation). > >Such a bit would hopefully disambiguate the cases where TC=1

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

Paul Hoffman wrote: RFC 1035 and RFC 2181 are unclear about whether an RRset that is required in a reply can be partial. 1035 is clear: - When several RRs of the same type are available for a particular owner name, the resolver should either cache them all or none at all. When

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

Brian, Thanks for the interesting idea. Apologies for the rambling response below. On 02/07/2020 19.16, Brian Dickson wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:14 AM Paul Hoffman > wrote: The interpretation of whether a partial RRset is allowed by 1035/2181

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:14 AM Paul Hoffman wrote: > The interpretation of whether a partial RRset is allowed by 1035/2181 made > by JohnL, PaulV, and MukundS are all plausible and conflicting. RFC 1035 > and RFC 2181 are unclear about whether an RRset that is required in a reply > can be

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] partial glue is not enough, I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt

The interpretation of whether a partial RRset is allowed by 1035/2181 made by JohnL, PaulV, and MukundS are all plausible and conflicting. RFC 1035 and RFC 2181 are unclear about whether an RRset that is required in a reply can be partial. draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional as it stands is