Darcy Kevin (FCA) kevin.darcy at
Thu Jan 7 22:05:20 UTC 2016

I do find it a little ironic that the HINFO RDATA shown earlier in the thread, references the "refuse-any" draft, yet, in the selfsame RDATA, violates one of the "SHOULD"s of the draft:

"The OS field of the HINFO RDATA SHOULD be set to the null string to minimise the size of the response."

Kind of sends a mixed message, don't you think?

									- Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: bind-users-bounces at [mailto:bind-users-bounces at] On Behalf Of Reindl Harald
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 4:41 PM
To: bind-users at
Subject: Re: Allow-Query=any

Am 07.01.2016 um 22:31 schrieb Warren Kumari:
> Reindl, did you read the draft referred to in the HINFO? ( 
> ). It 
> clearly outlines the reasons that cloudfare is doing this. This 
> document was discussed in the DNSOP WG, and was presented at a few meetings.
> The consensus within the DNSOP WG was to adopt and work on the draft, 
> so I object to your characterization of this as "another clueless 
> idiot degrading services" at a large company.
> Olafur and Joe (the authors of this) are far from clueless idiots.
> In addition, please try to moderate your tone - people come to the 
> BIND Users list for assistance - your argumentative (and often 
> insulting) posts are not helpful to building a community

i did read and understand the reasoning long before this thread as i also had the RRL patches in production long before they went to stable releases

with RRL and "minimal-responses yes;" the response size/impact of a ANY query is very limited while that is a completly different reasoning than "I don't want display all info"

More information about the bind-users mailing list