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

Reply via email to