In message <56e64398.7010...@redbarn.org>, Paul Vixie writes:
>
>
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> > ... please explain how RFC 1034 Section 4.3.2. Algorithm can return
> > a Name Error for a empty non-terminal. I don't see it unless there
> > is a missing delegation and that is a configuration error.
Mark Andrews wrote:
... please explain how RFC 1034 Section 4.3.2. Algorithm can return
a Name Error for a empty non-terminal. I don't see it unless there
is a missing delegation and that is a configuration error. I have
zero problems with a cache returning Name Error if there is a
configurat
In message <56e63c71.1080...@redbarn.org>, Paul Vixie writes:
>
>
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> > ...
> > NXDOMAIN at a empty non terminal only came about as the result of
> > bad wording in RFC 2535. "no names" should have been "no names
> > with data" (the difference is crucial in determining which
Mark Andrews wrote:
...
NXDOMAIN at a empty non terminal only came about as the result of
bad wording in RFC 2535. "no names" should have been "no names
with data" (the difference is crucial in determining which rcode
is returned). Only RFC 2535 nameservers are allowed to return
NXDOMAIN for
In message
, abby pan writes:
> Ted Lemon
>
> >
> > I think this document could be made a lot simpler if it simply said what
> > it says in the abstract, without placing new requirements on DNS caches.
> > Right now it says DNS caches SHOULD take an NXDOMAIN on a particular
> > domain as apply
Ted Lemon 于2016年3月11日周五 下午12:26写道：
>
> I think this document could be made a lot simpler if it simply said what
> it says in the abstract, without placing new requirements on DNS caches.
> Right now it says DNS caches SHOULD take an NXDOMAIN on a particular
> domain as applying to all names under
> what i'm urging here is great caution both for the authors and the
> reviewers. improving the readability of this topic over what we wrote in
> resimprove-00 seems necessary but is not a simple proposition.
I don't think this is actually all that complicated. The problem is that you
are tryin
Ted Lemon wrote:
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 01:58, Paul Vixie wrote:
Ted, I think you're reading it wrong. The implementation doesn't matter
at all. As Co-Chair Woolf kindly and classily 2x4'd me last year, an RFC
should be of the form "if you want to do X, here's a way to do it
interoperably
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 01:58, Paul Vixie wrote:
> Ted, I think you're reading it wrong. The implementation doesn't matter
> at all. As Co-Chair Woolf kindly and classily 2x4'd me last year, an RFC
> should be of the form "if you want to do X, here's a way to do it
> interoperably."
With all d
>It's clear from the context that 6844 §5.1 is talking about the wire
>format, while §5.1.1 is talking about the presentation format. If the
>rules for the canonical presentation format are stricter than the rules
>for the wire format, then there exist wire RRs that cannot be
>represented using the
10 matches
Mail list logo
