> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> > fujiw...@jprs.co.jp <fujiw...@jprs.co.jp> wrote > a message of 61 lines which said: > >> I submitted draft-fujiwara-dnsop-resolver-update-00 that tries to >> improve resolver algorithm. > > I see the point but I have two practical reservations: > > 1) Having two separate caches may be a big change for some > implementations.
Yes. Two cache approach have patent problem. There may be another implementation method. > 2) It will make debugging more difficult. With your two-caches system, > "dig @myresolver NS foobar.example" will retrieve the data in > foobar.example, while the resolver will use, when iterating, the data > from .example, which is not showed and I don't see a standard way to > retrieve it from the "delegation cache". - The simplest mode for the client is recursive, since in this mode the name server acts in the role of a resolver and returns either an error or the answer, but never referrals. (RFC 1034 Section 4.3.1) "dig @myresolver NS foobar.example" returns authoritative data. > Apart from that, one detail: section 6 on implementations is too > short. You should expand it at least with the name of the > implementations (you mention two in your OARC talk, so it is not a > secret), and may be with RFC 7942 boilerplate. I will add. Regards, -- Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <fujiw...@jprs.co.jp> _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
