Moin! On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 02:53:34PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote: > > i'd appreciate not having to argue about whether the term "ACL" is one > of art or one of practice. let's talk about what we're trying to > accomplish in terms of protocol revision, rather than talking about what > specific application-specific words we shouldn't use when describing > those accomplishments. And I wasn't talking about that. My point was and still is that we should make the ACL or hell what you call it not a requirement in the draft, at least not one that is mandatory.
> > There may be applications that > > may want to have a default behavior, thus we should not put ACL in the > > draft. > > i don't understand this statement. make the default "nobody". i thought > you were disagreeing? See above. I am fine with a draft that says one can implement an ACL to allow requests. Lets try with some text for the section 3 of the draft: A Recursive Resolver can answer with RCODE=0/ANCOUNT=0 to an ANY query rather than the current content of it's cache. A recursive resolver can implement a mechanism to allow certain hosts access to the cache content with an ANY query. is that what you want? I would be fine with that. I just don't want a MUST on the ACL thing. So long -Ralf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
