On Mar 10, 2015, at 8:46 AM, David C Lawrence <t...@akamai.com> wrote: > > Paul Hoffman writes: >> On Mar 10, 2015, at 6:25 AM, Yunhong Gu <g...@google.com> wrote: >>> So the problem is, why NOTIMP? REFUSED sounds like a better choice. >> >> +1. "REFUSED" exactly describes what is going on. > > One down side there, however, is that REFUSED as understood by > resolvers commonly has the semantic currently that the name is not > hosted by the server at all. What used to be root referrals for lame > delegations is now REFUSED to minimize response size.
If a resolver is sending an ANY before it sends its actual request, that could be a problem. However, they shouldn't be doing that. It is likely that any response we think of (even no response at all) will cause some deployed resolvers to get the wrong idea. Having said that, it is perfectly reasonable for an operator to not want to reply to an ANY, given the unclarity of what it is expected to send back and the opportunity for malicious intelligence gathering. So us saying "if you want to do this, use that" at least will cause future versions of things that relied on ANY to know what they are getting. Also: this should probably one of the three threads on dn...@ietf.org... --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
