David Conrad wrote: > On Mar 3, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Paul Vixie <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> are you advising (by implication) that a receiver who hears TC=1 with >> ANCOUNT>0 or NSCOUNT>0 or ADCOUNT>0 treat it as a FORMERR? > > Hmm. > > I always assumed that if TC=1, pretty much everything else in the > response was irrelevant since I would be unable to trust what was > there was complete. So I'd say 'no' and I don't see any ambiguity....
i know of code that's in widespread use which assumes that TC=1 means that the last non-empty section was damaged but that it is safe to cache anything found in earlier sections. this code is clearly wrong-headed, but as i said, is in wide-spread use. a protocol clarification (not a change, which dnsop can't by charter make) might be that a sender should send empty response, authority, and additional sections when setting TC=1, and that a receiver must act as if the response, authority, and additional sections are empty if it sees TC=1. vixie
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
