1034 cannot be reasonably read that way. I am asking for a clarification not a
rule change.
On November 29, 2017 8:21:01 PM GMT+08:00, Andrew Sullivan
<a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 07:08:01PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> that's fatally unclear.
>
>So I gather :)
>
>> then the thing to say would be "a referral should always be downward,
>and if
>> a non-downward referral is received, it should be treated as a
>network data
>> configuration error".
>
>No, that is attempting to define away other kinds of referrals, which
>is precisely the discussion we were previously having (and why Joe and
>I wrote that other draft). The terminology draft should not, in my
>opinion, attempt to change any RFC; and, IMO, 1034 defines referrals
>in such a way that someone _could_ think that upward referrals are
>sometimes a normal part of operation. If we want to change the advice
>of what to do there, I think a different document is needed.
>
>Best regards,
>
>A
>
>--
>Andrew Sullivan
>a...@anvilwalrusden.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>DNSOP mailing list
>DNSOP@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
