From owner-freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Fri Mar 12 17:07:41 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D8C57E561 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:07:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Dxsgx3H9pz4XkP for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:07:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 7095A57E724; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:07:41 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: standards@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 705E157E6F2 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:07:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Dxsgx2k23z4Xpr for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:07:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 506721B51C for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:07:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 12CH7fXx041649 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:07:41 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 12CH7fAl041648 for standards@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:07:41 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 248102] [local_unbound] default config file violates RFC Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:07:41 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: standards X-Bugzilla-Version: Unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: walter.von.entferndt@posteo.net X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: standards@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:07:41 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D248102 --- Comment #5 from Walter von Entferndt = --- (In reply to Rodney W. Grimes from comment #4) Thank you for supporting my suggestion, and referencing the much more appropriate RFC 6761 Section 6.1.4: "[...] Instead, caching DNS servers SHO= ULD, _by_ _default_, generate immediate (positive or negative) responses for all such queries. [...] Caching DNS servers SHOULD offer a configuration option (_disabled_ _by_ _default_) to enable upstream resolution of such names, [...]" (add. underlining to make clear to point of interest) Now again, since SHOULD/SHOULD NOT reads (RFC 1918): "[...] the case carefu= lly weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label." I want to repeat that a SHOULD/SHOULD NOT _must_ _not_ be overridden _arbitrarily_ just because it's not a MUST/MUST NOT. This is clearly /not/= the case: there can no weighting w/o knowing the special circumstances of the deploying network. Thus, a SHOULD/SHOULD NOT has _regularly_ to be taken l= ike MUST/MUST NOT for the domain of shipping default configurations. Very few exceptions may exist to this rule. In this case, I can not see any valid reason, no matter how hard I try. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=