On 6 Aug 2020, at 16:41, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:08 AM, Andrew McConachie <and...@depht.com>
wrote:
What does it mean for a resolver to be primed, or for a resolver to
not be primed? For example, is a resolver considered primed only if
it has all root server names and IP addresses? 50%? At least 1?
Excellent questions, two that the WG can certainly consider. Note that
it *is* two questions, the root server names and the associated
addresses.
From the text you quote:
Priming is the act of finding the list of root servers from a
configuration that lists some or all of the purported IP addresses
of
some or all of those root servers. A recursive resolver starts
with
no information about the root servers, and ends up with a list of
their names and their addresses.
RFC 8109 indicates that priming means knowing the full set of names
and the full set of addresses.
It would be good if this document said that without having to refer back
to RFC 8109.
If that were true it would be impossible for the resolver to find
anything. It definitely starts with some information about the root
servers. Maybe change "no information" to "this information".
This distinction is important. A resolver starts with no actual
information, but only meta-information: where to get the actual names
and addresses for the root server. Is there a better way to say this
in the -bis document?
Meta-information is information, just like meta-data is data. The
distinction only depends on context.
How about this for the last sentence, “A recursive resolver starts
with no cached information about the root servers, and finishes with a
full list of their names and their addresses in its cache.”
—Andrew
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
