[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       dns-operations
Subject:    Re: [dns-operations] Update Mechanisms (was Re: EDNS and TLDs)
From:       Matthew Pounsett <matt () conundrum ! com>
Date:       2016-11-17 4:08:30
Message-ID: CAAiTEH8Q70Ymi_y4r+r3oLwGFF4--VWja+7TZ8XYqKkuwKzs9w () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]


On 17 November 2016 at 12:56, P Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:

>
>
> On November 17, 2016 11:17:19 AM GMT+08:00, Matthew Pounsett <
> matt@conundrum.com> wrote:
> >On 17 November 2016 at 12:06, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
> ...
> >Alternatively, 2136 could have defined an RCODE response that indicates
> >"never send updates here."  The meaning assigned to REFUSED can (and
> >is)
> >interpreted as a refusal to accept that individual update, and so it's
> >perfectly reasonable to assume the next update might be accepted.
>
> That would have been a DOS vector, so, no.
>
> And fair enough.  In the absence of DNSSEC that would definitely have been
a consideration.

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 17 \
November 2016 at 12:56, P Vixie <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:paul@redbarn.org" \
target="_blank">paul@redbarn.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br> <br>
On November 17, 2016 11:17:19 AM GMT+08:00, Matthew Pounsett &lt;<a \
href="mailto:matt@conundrum.com">matt@conundrum.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br> &gt;On 17 \
November 2016 at 12:06, Jim Reid &lt;<a \
href="mailto:jim@rfc1035.com">jim@rfc1035.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br> </span>...<br>
<span class="">&gt;Alternatively, 2136 could have defined an RCODE response that \
indicates<br> &gt;&quot;never send updates here.&quot;   The meaning assigned to \
REFUSED can (and<br> &gt;is)<br>
&gt;interpreted as a refusal to accept that individual update, and so it&#39;s<br>
&gt;perfectly reasonable to assume the next update might be accepted.<br>
<br>
</span>That would have been a DOS vector, so, no.<br><br></blockquote><div>And fair \
enough.   In the absence of DNSSEC that would definitely have been a consideration.  \
</div></div><br></div></div>



_______________________________________________
dns-operations mailing list
dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
dns-operations mailing list
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]