On 2012-07-14, at 16:50, Doug Barton wrote: > I would argue further that a child NS set which is a superset of the > parent is not lame, or broken. There are valid reasons to do this, > (outside the scope of this document, certainly) and I'd hate to see this > instantiated as "an RFC violation" as a side effect.
Or a subset, or a completely different set. The relative sizes of the NS sets and the size of the intersection is not really relevant; the important thing for resolution is whether the union of both sets contains lame servers. Any new work which needed to assert that both sets were the same would meet with little objection though, I think. It's commonly-shared wisdom that both sets should be the same, and "are consistent and remain so" (RFC 1034 section 4.2.2) is fairly clear. Joe
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
