idnits 2.17.1 draft-spacek-edns-camel-diet-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (May 29, 2018) is 2131 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC1035' is defined on line 100, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2671' is defined on line 104, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6891' is defined on line 108, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2671 (Obsoleted by RFC 6891) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group P. Spacek 3 Internet-Draft CZ.NIC 4 Intended status: Standards Track O. Gudmundsson 5 Expires: November 30, 2018 Cloudflare 6 O. Sury 7 ISC 8 May 29, 2018 10 Minimal EDNS compliance requirements 11 draft-spacek-edns-camel-diet-01 13 Abstract 15 DNS responders must either follow RFC 6891 by fully implementing EDNS 16 or at least respond to queries containing OPT record according to 17 older specifications. Non-compliant implementations which do not 18 respond at all are not worth talking to. 20 Status of This Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 28 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2018. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 40 document authors. All rights reserved. 42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 44 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 45 publication of this document. Please review these documents 46 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 47 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 48 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 49 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 50 described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 2. The Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 4. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 1. Introduction 65 Neither the original DNS standard RFC 1035 nor its extensions RFC 66 2671 and RFC 6891 allow not to respond to a DNS query. Many years 67 later non-compliant implementations which drop queries still exist 68 and cause lot of extra queries, latency, and complicated logic in 69 recursive resolvers. The cost of supporting these non-compliant 70 implementations keeps increasing. 72 1.1. Terminology 74 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 75 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 76 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. 78 2. The Protocol 80 No DNS response message to a repeated DNS query containing EDNS 81 extension implies that the other side is not a DNS responder. The 82 querier MUST NOT retry its query without EDNS. 84 3. Security Considerations 86 Instruction to follow EDNS standard does not change security 87 properties beyond what is written in RFC 6891. 89 4. Privacy Considerations 91 This has no effect on privacy of DNS. 93 5. IANA Considerations 95 [Note to IANA, to be removed prior to publication: there are no IANA 96 considerations stated in this version of the document.] 98 6. Normative References 100 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 101 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, 102 November 1987, . 104 [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", 105 RFC 2671, DOI 10.17487/RFC2671, August 1999, 106 . 108 [RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms 109 for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891, 110 DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013, 111 . 113 Authors' Addresses 115 Petr Spacek 117 Email: petr.spacek@nic.cz 119 Olafur Gudmundsson 121 Email: olafur+ietf@cloudflare.com 123 Ondrej Sury 125 Email: ondrej@isc.org