> On 20 Apr 2015, at 17:57, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote: > > Yes. There are differences between the explicit definition for DNS forwarder > in RFC 2308 and the strongly implied definition in RFC 5625. The WG needs to > decide which definition it prefers, and an explanation of why (because both > definitions exist). For comparison: > > RFC 2308: > "FORWARDER" - a nameserver used to resolve queries instead of > directly using the authoritative nameserver chain. The forwarder > typically either has better access to the internet, or maintains a > bigger cache which may be shared amongst many resolvers. How a > server is identified as a FORWARDER, or knows it is a FORWARDER is > outside the scope of this document. However if you are being used as > a forwarder the query will have the recursion desired flag set. > > RFC 5625: > These proxies are usually simple DNS forwarders, but typically do not > have any caching capabilities. The proxy serves as a convenient > default DNS resolver for clients on the LAN, but relies on an > upstream resolver (e.g., at an ISP) to perform recursive DNS lookups.
As the author of the latter text, I feel it may be important to make a distinction between forwarders that actively participate in the protocol (that is, they parse requests and responses, and act as a "hop", c.f. BIND configured to use a forwarder) vs those that simply punt (UDP) packets in both directions without regard to the content. Ray _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
