Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 03:18:57PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
what would "to work" mean in the above text?
"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).
that's fatally unclear.
... The point is in contrast to the downward referrals case, which
_must_ work or delegation doesn't. I'm nervous about someone running
off saying, "IETF says referrals don't work," which is clearly not
the point.
then the thing to say would be "a referral should always be downward,
and if a non-downward referral is received, it should be treated as a
network data configuration error".
that an upward referral could "work" in the above-reference sense
seems to imply that the authority server you've queried, knows more
about where the zone really is, than you could learn by walking
down from the root. that's a walking talking nonsequitur. could you
tell me what you really mean by "to work" since it can't possibly
be that?
Indeed, it is not that. Suggestions on how to make this clearer are
welcome.
Evan Hunt wrote:
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."
i don't think we can walk this path without touching the "should" fire.
-- P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
