> On May 24, 2018, at 7:51 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On 23 May 2018, at 11:49, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>>
>> I for one would like to see proposed text - we can decide from that if it
>> makes things clearer.
>
> The proposed text is at
> https://github.com/APNIC-Labs/draft-kskroll-sentine
John Levine wrote:
...
I'm guessing that it's intended to mean return the answer if you
already have it. If so, we should document that. I see that unbound
makes it an option but normally refuses any RD=0 queries.
it's a diagnostic query, like qtype=ANY, or qtype=NS. answering it
should
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:52:23AM -0400, John Levine wrote:
> >You mean, when a server that is not authoritative for anything
> >nevertheless gets a query with RD==0? I think that's fine. How else
> >do you debug a cache?
>
> I'm guessing that it's intended to mean return the answer if you
> al
Shumon Huque wrote:
...
Ah, great. I couldn't remember whether 1034 described this
explicitly. Thanks for quoting the relevant sentences. My point was
that 1034 did not use the term "Empty Non Terminal", although as you
point out here, it clearly describes the concept (an interior node
with n
In article <20180529032839.ga18...@mx4.yitter.info> you write:
>> I like it because I like anything that makes the DNS simpler. I'd
>> make the advice clearer, authoritative servers that want to
>> interoperate MUST refuse out of zone requests.
>
>This is an interesting suggestion.
Thanks.
>>
Greetings. Over a month ago, we suggested that the document was ready
for WG Last Call. If it isn't, we'd like to know what we need to fix in
order to make it ready.
--Paul Hoffman
On 27 Apr 2018, at 12:28, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Please see the diffs at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=dra
Hello dnsop,
I've attempted to address concerns raised in dnsop about
draft-spacek-edns-camel-diet-00.
Main change from 00 is that mentions of FORMERR were replaced with
reference to older standards.
After all, the only important part of this draft is that responder MUST
reply in a way which
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:45 AM Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>
> RFC 1034 states in 3.1 "The domain system makes no distinctions between
> the uses of the interior nodes and leaves, and this memo uses the term
> "node" to refer to both."
>
Right.
> Then, it states in 3.6 "A domain name identifies a
