Re: axfr-clarify supporting unauthorized users

[Kevin Darcy <kcd@daimlerchrysler.com>]

Mark.Andrews@isc.org wrote:

> > "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-informat
> > ive
> > *today*, at least it's more informative than TCP FIN, and also, it has room t
> > o
> > grow to be more informative in potential revisions of the DNS protocol. Somet
> > hing
> > 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 create
> > d
> > dedicated to error reporting. TCP FIN forecloses such possibilities and is
> > basically an evolutionary dead-end for the protocol.
> >    
> 	It's already happened.  NOTAUTH is returned when the server
> 	is not configured for the zone rather than REFUSED from the
> 	RFC 1034 days.
>  
Indeed. In fact, I think I was one of the ones who urged that provision 
several discussion rounds ago.

I guess memory is the first thing to go...

                                                                       
                                       - 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/>