I think your requirement is wrong, or misstated.
You ought not want to imply there could be other types, except at the apex.
The semantics of an empty riot zone in a disconnected name space suit you
perfectly.
If I get ambitious and revive resimprove then the no children exist signaling
will also matter.
Why get cute?
Paul
Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote:
>We want the absence of (qname, qtype) to be cached by resolvers who
>follow
>a delegation to an omniscient as112 server for all (qname, qtype).
>
>Given that requirement the thought was that NOERROR/no data and
>NXDOMAIN
>were equally plausible. However, I see now that the lack of "no
>children"
>signalling has the potential to cause increased query load, since
>resolvers
>will re-query for children despite an earlier query for a parent. My
>feeling is that this is not a big deal and the ability to add/drop with
>no
>coordination with server operators represents a greater win, but I have
>no
>science behind my words.
>
>The current scheme (witness Warren's code) seems to do this (modulo
>extra
>queries for children) for all (qname, qtype) where qtype != SOA. Which
>is
>not perfect, but, I think pretty good. We could servfail on qtype ==
>SOA I
>guess, which is crazy nasty but which I think for all practical
>purposes
>would work.
>
>I like your other message's "minimal response" notion, though. When I'm
>not
>sitting on a plane headed for a beach, I will play with that.
>
>
>Joe
>
>Aue Te Ariki! He toki ki roto taku mahuna!
>
>On 2013-02-22, at 16:53, P Vixie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Sorry to be late on this, missed it earlier.
>
>Nxd says there is no such name, no matter what the type was, and there
>are
>no children. No data/noerror says there are either other types or
>children
>or both. We know what the truth must be and we know which implications
>we
>want the requestor to follow. Right? Is there any doubt at all or any
>ambiguity in what we want said? ... Paul
>
>Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2013-02-22, at 07:57, Paul Vixie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> if we can't return nxdomain, then i'm opposed to the omniscient spec,
>>> and we should continue as before, enumerating on the responding
>servers
>>> every zone to which we wish to delegate.
>>>
>>> noerror/nodata is the wrong answer.
>>
>>
>> It does smell a bit wrong, but I'm interested in more details of why
>you think that if it's more than just the smell.
>>
>> I'll note that the proposal is to assign new nameservers to be
>omniscient, and not to convert the existing ones. We are then in a
>position to delegate other local-zoneish zones to the new servers and
>review the impact.
>>
>> So, the suggestion is not to replace the existing AS112 servers
>(blackhole-1,
>> blackhole-2 and prisoner) out of the gate. Any such replacement would
>happen later, once there was some degree of comfort that it was safe to
>do that.
>>
>>
>> Joe
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>
>>
>--
>Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
