Hi, This is quite a helpful response, thanks. I wonder whether more of it ought to go in discussion (or a new draft), however. For I'm struck by this:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 06:42:18PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote: > > always be generated using only local data, and either contains the > > answer to the question or a referral to other name servers "closer" to > > the desired information. > > the operative phrase is '"closer" to'. this is repeated in 4.3.1: If I ask the authoritative server for example.com about a name label.example.net, in a graph-theoretic sense the NS RRset for the root zone is clearly closer to label.example.net than anything else I can give. So the upward referral doesn't seem prohibited by this at all; on the contrary, it seems like a requirement. Maybe I need to read this again with better glasses. The current approaches that people have for this are either NODATA responses and REFUSED. Only the latter seems obviously consistent with the text, though I'm aware that there's controversy over using REFUSED here. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
