At Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:55:09 -0700, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote:
> we should describe the positive benefits to the dns system (without > mentioning any benefit or cost to any implementor or implementation style). > > "As implied by STD 13 and as made explicit herein, an authoritative > response of code 3 (NXDOMAIN) asserts the nonexistence of both its QNAME > and all possible subdomains. DNS coherence can be systemically improved > if, after receiving such a response and before receiving some new > response indicating the existence of some RRset at or below that QNAME, > a recursive server answers with code 3 (NXDOMAIN) for all questions > which are equal to or subdomains of that QNAME, even if the recursive > server has unexpired RRsets stored at subdomains of that QNAME. As to > whether the resources held by such cached RRsets are reclaimed, or > whether they are allowed to expire naturally, this specification makes > no recommendation." I can't speak for the authors, and I have no objection to this proposed text personally, but I suspect this text will lose the author's intent of recommending the nxdomain-cut behavior *quite strongly*. If the wg agrees to dropping the sense, this text is probably just good enough. If the wg wants to keep the sense of strong recommendation, I'm afraid this proposed text is too weak. In that case, and if the use of RFC2119 keywords is the major blocking issue in that case, then we should discuss whether we can still keep the sense of strong recommendation without using 2119 keywords. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
