On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:22 PM, 神明達哉 <[email protected]> wrote: > At Thu, 6 Oct 2016 02:49:34 -0400, > Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I did some fix up - how do you like: >> >> "If a validating resolver gets a query for cat.example.com, it will >> >> query the example.com servers and will get back an NSEC (or NSEC3) >> >> record starting that there are no records between apple and elephant. > [...] >> >> Does that cover it sufficiently? (and I think I now better understand >> >> your concern). >> > >> > To be perfectly generic, "it will query the example.com servers" is >> > not always the case. It (= validating resolver) might query another >> > intermediate resolver (often called a "forwarder") that performs >> > recursion. By "external server" I tried to generalize the concept. >> >> Maybe this? >> >> "If a validating resolver receives a query for cat.example.com, it >> contacts its resolver (which may be itself) to query the example.com >> servers and will get back an NSEC (or NSEC3) record starting that there >> are no records between apple and elephant." > > Yes, this is one way to address my point. I'd leave it to the authors > specifically how to address it.
Great. DONE. > > -- > JINMEI, Tatuya -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
