On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Edward Lewis <edward.le...@icann.org> wrote:
> > I'd written up a response, but perhaps the intent of the text is fine. > The way it is written is what is throwing me. > > Perhaps instead of this: > > # When an iterative caching DNS resolver receives a response NXDOMAIN, > # it SHOULD store it in its cache and all names and RRsets at or below > # that node SHOULD then be considered to be unreachable. > > When an iterative caching DNS resolver receives a response with RCODE > being NXDOMAIN, the resolver SHOULD store the response in its (negative) > cache. During the time the response is cached, any query with a QNAME at > or descended from the denied name that is not otherwise cached > (positively), can be assumed to result in a name error. Responses to those > queries SHOULD set RCODE=NXDOMAIN (using the DNSSEC records cached as > proof). > > ...that's not the best wording either - but "unreachable" is not a term > I'd use. I'm not sure "negative cache" and "positive cache" are recognized > terms. > I'd suggest replacing "unreachable" with "non-existent": # When an iterative caching DNS resolver receives an NXDOMAIN response, # it SHOULD store it in its (negative) cache and all names and RRsets at or below # that node SHOULD then be considered non-existent. -- Shumon Huque
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
