Re: [DNSOP] Clarification on EDNS 6891

Ray Bellis wrote: > On 12/06/2015 17:49, Paul Vixie wrote: > >> in RFC 6891 (6.8.2) i see this text: >> >>Middleboxes that simply forward requests to a recursive resolver MUST >>NOT modify and MUST NOT delete the OPT record contents in either >>direction. >> >> in which case, proxy_dn

Re: [DNSOP] Clarification on EDNS 6891

On 12/06/2015 17:49, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > Ray Bellis wrote: >> >> RFC 2671 (§4.1) says "OPT RRs shall never be ... forwarded". > > as the author of that text, i claim that i was referring to DNS > Forwarding, in the sense described by >

Re: [DNSOP] Clarification on EDNS 6891

Ray Bellis wrote: > On 12/06/2015 15:46, Paul Vixie wrote: > >> however, that's not the world we live in. consider for example >> proxy_dns (available as open source on >> https://github.com/BII-Lab/DNSoverHTTP) which is perfectly capable of >> carrying individual dns transactions over several pa

Re: [DNSOP] Clarification on EDNS 6891

On 12/06/2015 15:46, Paul Vixie wrote: > connections weren't considered when EDNS was first described, nor > when it was later redescribed. > > i think if you're specifying an option that refers to the connection > (for example, to negotiate better "close" rules than is present in > raw tcp/53

Re: [DNSOP] Clarification on EDNS 6891

Ray Bellis wrote: > ... > > The use case we are considering is that absent an OPT RR in each > request, RFC 6891 doesn't permit the server to unilaterally send back an > OPT RR in a response (e.g. for connection signalling purposes) even it > one was previously seen on the same persistent connect

Re: [DNSOP] Clarification on EDNS 6891

Ray, On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:52:44 +0100 Ray Bellis wrote: > On 03/06/2015 17:22, Joe Abley wrote: > > On 3 Jun 2015, at 17:17, Shane Kerr wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:57:39 +0100 > >> Ray Bellis wrote: > >> > >>> Whilst discussing 5966-bis with my co-authors connection-close with the

Re: [DNSOP] Clarification on EDNS 6891

On 03/06/2015 17:22, Joe Abley wrote: > On 3 Jun 2015, at 17:17, Shane Kerr wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:57:39 +0100 >> Ray Bellis wrote: >> >>> Whilst discussing 5966-bis with my co-authors connection-close with the >>> co-authors, we were reminded of this point I made in >>> draft-belli

Re: [DNSOP] Clarification on EDNS 6891

On 03/06/2015 17:22, Joe Abley wrote: > I think there's a baked-in expectation that OPT pseudo-RR is included in > every DNS message, not on every connection (where the transport is > connection-oriented). Joe, Part of the reason this came up is this text in draft-ietf-edns-tcp-keepalive: "DN

Re: [DNSOP] Clarification on EDNS 6891

On 3 Jun 2015, at 17:17, Shane Kerr wrote: On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:57:39 +0100 Ray Bellis wrote: Whilst discussing 5966-bis with my co-authors connection-close with the co-authors, we were reminded of this point I made in draft-bellis-dnsop-connection-close in relation to §7 of RFC 6891: "

Re: [DNSOP] Clarification on EDNS 6891

Ray, On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:57:39 +0100 Ray Bellis wrote: > Whilst discussing 5966-bis with my co-authors connection-close with the > co-authors, we were reminded of this point I made in > draft-bellis-dnsop-connection-close in relation to §7 of RFC 6891: > > " TODO: note - the constraint in R

[DNSOP] Clarification on EDNS 6891

Whilst discussing 5966-bis with my co-authors connection-close with the co-authors, we were reminded of this point I made in draft-bellis-dnsop-connection-close in relation to §7 of RFC 6891: " TODO: note - the constraint in RFC 6891 appears unnecessarily strict - it appears to mandate that th