At Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:16:28 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote:
> > > 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. Yes, this will address my point perfectly. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
