On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote:
> On Monday, October 26, 2015 10:15:37 AM Ray Bellis wrote: > > On 26/10/2015 09:52, I wrote: > > > That's clear - what isn't perhaps, is what the RCODE should be, given > > > that this text is in a section with "Name Error" in its title. > > > > For what it's worth, I expect the answer to be NOERROR, but I think the > > text that lumps empty-non-terminals in with "name error" causes > > sufficient ambiguity and confusion that an errata may be in order. > > strong +1. > > names that don't exist can't have children. I agree, however I'm slightly amused that we are having this discussion in 2015. Is there anyone that is claiming that the response code for empty non-terminals should not be NOERROR. Yes, there are some CDNs and hosting providers that currently issue Name Error for empty non-terminals, but every one of them I've spoken to has positively acknowledged that this is a defect that they are planning to fix. If we need to provide a reference, RFC 4592, Section 2.2.2 has a pretty good treatment of empty non-terminals (updating 1034), that pretty definitively states that they exist, and thus their response code cannot be Name Error. Shumon.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
