Re: axfr-clarify supporting unauthorized users

[Kevin Darcy <kcd@daimlerchrysler.com>]

"D. J. Bernstein" wrote:

> Mark.Andrews@isc.org writes:
>
> > > Of course, there's also no support in RFC 1034 for your strange claim
> > > that a closed connection is not ``an error.''
> > Closing a connection is not sending back a error message.
>
> On the contrary. I agree that FIN is, in this context, not a
> particularly _informative_ error message, but REFUSED and SERVFAIL
> aren't particularly informative either; they carry only marginally more
> information than FIN.

I'd just like to point out that, even if RCODE=REFUSED is rather non-informative
*today*, at least it's more informative than TCP FIN, and also, it has room to
grow to be more informative in potential revisions of the DNS protocol. Something
could be put in an OPT record, for instance, detailing the error condition
further, extended flags could be used, or a whole new RR type could be created
dedicated to error reporting. TCP FIN forecloses such possibilities and is
basically an evolutionary dead-end for the protocol.


- Kevin



--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>