Hi, Andrew: Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 05:22:41PM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > I think "response" and "reply" don't need to be defined, but they do need > > to be used more carefully, and we didn't do that here, I think (but my > > co-authors might disagree with me). From looking at your concerns and the > > general use of "bailiwick", I propose that it is records, not responses, > > that in- or out-of. > > What's tricky here is that the bailiwick-ness of something is only > relevant given a response. So it seems to me that it's a question of > records in a given response. I think Paul's proposed text doesn't > _quite_ get us there, but it's close. I'll think some more.
Do you think the "simple way" in RFC 5452 ยง6 is talking about the bailiwick-ness of records, or is it describing something different/stricter? > > Out-of-bailiwick -- A glue record in which the name server answering is not > > authoritative for an ancestor of the owner name of the record. > > Given the previous discussion about glue, that word seems especially > fraught here. I note 6763 talks about verifying that "any records" (not just glue records) in a response are in-bailiwick. -- Robert Edmonds _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
