At Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:16:28 +0100,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > > That was exactly my point, and in that sense I'd say "SHOULD
> > > delete" is redundant (and possibly imposes unnecessary
> > > restrictions on implementations).
> >
> > Yes, I agree. The current description is a bit too impleme
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 05:39:04AM -0500,
Shumon Huque wrote
a message of 234 lines which said:
> > That was exactly my point, and in that sense I'd say "SHOULD
> > delete" is redundant (and possibly imposes unnecessary
> > restrictions on implementations).
>
>
> Yes, I agree. The current de
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:08 PM, 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Sun, 22 Nov 2015 14:52:34 +0100,
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> > > I've read draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-00
> >
> > Do note that -01 will be out in the next days and there are
> > substantial changes. So, readers may prefer to wait 48h
At Sun, 22 Nov 2015 14:52:34 +0100,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > I've read draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-00
>
> Do note that -01 will be out in the next days and there are
> substantial changes. So, readers may prefer to wait 48h :-)
Okay, I'm now referring to 01.
> > I suspect this i
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:12:20PM -0800,
神明達哉 wrote
a message of 79 lines which said:
> I've read draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-00
Do note that -01 will be out in the next days and there are
substantial changes. So, readers may prefer to wait 48h :-)
> - Abstract: s/status code/respon
I've read draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-00 and have a few
comments. (I support the basic idea of the proposal, btw)
- Abstract: s/status code/response code/
This document states clearly that when a DNS resolver receives a
response with status code NXDOMAIN, it means that the name in
