> "Not strictly speaking required to work" was intended to observe that, > if you didn't get a referral under this condition, nothing ought to > break (or, if it did, it was already broken).
I think the phrasing is unclear because "this response is not required to work" is ambiguous. The response *itself* doesn't have to work? Or the resolver can get along without this response? I took it to mean the latter, but I see how it could be confusing. I'd suggest something like "this response is not strictly speaking necessary, as it provides no information the resolver didn't already have; resolution can succeed without it." -- Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
