At Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:34:07 +0000, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote:
> >> If this observation is correct, I think what we should first agree on > >> is the real intent of the draft: > >> A. nxdomain-cut is "the correct behavior" and implementations SHOULD > >> generally support the behavior. Other behaviors are allowed but > >> should be considered minor exceptions. > > > Agree. That's the whole point of the draft. Slide 3 at the Yokohama meeting > > <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-dnsop-9.pdf> > > I believe that Jinmei-san was proposing one of two positions the > working group could take, so you aren't agreeing with him Correct (perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my message). Now that I'm more certain that the intent of the draft is above "A", I'd suggest: - make it even clearer in the draft - explain why this can't just be up to the implementor's choice (I know it's discussed in the thread, but I don't think it's super clear in the current text of the draft). We can then discuss whether that's the wg consensus. I personally don't have a strong opinion, but I don't think that part of discussion is over yet. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
