On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 05:39:04AM -0500, Shumon Huque <shu...@gmail.com> wrote a message of 234 lines which said:
> > That was exactly my point, and in that sense I'd say "SHOULD > > delete" is redundant (and possibly imposes unnecessary > > restrictions on implementations). > > > Yes, I agree. The current description is a bit too implementation specific. My concern is that some implementations may have a cache composed of a tree structure *plus* a hashed index for speed. When receiving a query whose answer is in the cache, such implementation may not perform a "downward search" in the cache. May be something like: "After the reception of a NXDOMAIN answer for a given name, the resolver SHOULD/MUST? reply NXDOMAIN for every name under the denied name." (There are details, such as TTL and such as RFC 6604, see the draft for these.) That way, we just specify a behaviour, with zero implementation detail. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
