Hi Wouter, Thanks for the additional info.
>> Resultant state | Secure | Bogus | Nxdomain >> --------------------+--------+-------+----------- >> happy | 0 | 1 | 0 >> extatic | 1 | 0 | 0 > > Adding nxdomain to the list is weird. Also the table misses the > secure=0, bogus=0 entry. You are happy with dnssec failure (bogus?), > i.e. dnssec is deployed but fails? I think the name is wrong. Oh, it's an example of the format of a table that would be of use. The names happy / extactic are just meant as meaningless dribble. I hadn't assumed you would take me seriously ;-) What I was trying to say is that a table of this kind is both easier to keep complete in the documentation, and it gives developers a better overview of how flags relate. I imagine this to lead to confusion and misinterpretations due to the wordy form and the (sometimes confusing) relations between the flags. >> This could help us determine in what order to probe flags, and whether >> there may be flavours of Nxdomain, for instance. > > I would recommend first looking at the bogus and secure flags. > > Then see if there is data, nxdomain, havedata. > > Then look at the data. Thanks! >> I hope I didn't miss any of the documentation! > > The comments in the unbound.h header file? The libunbound man page? I didn't see the header file yet, Thanks, -Rick
