On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 03:18:57PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote: > what would "to work" mean in the above text?
"Not strictly speaking required to work" was intended to observe that, if you didn't get a referral under this condition, nothing ought to break (or, if it did, it was already broken). The point is in contrast to the downward referrals case, which _must_ work or delegation doesn't. I'm nervous about someone running off saying, "IETF says referrals don't work," which is clearly not the point. > that an upward referral could "work" in the above-reference sense seems to > imply that the authority server you've queried, knows more about where the > zone really is, than you could learn by walking down from the root. that's a > walking talking nonsequitur. could you tell me what you really mean by "to > work" since it can't possibly be that? Indeed, it is not that. Suggestions on how to make this clearer are welcome. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
