As an additional note why is putting the answer into the authority section needed at all? Just look for AA=1 in the response. Recursive responses have AA=0. The resolver is supposed to be authoritative for the name and the RRset. Additionally if you don’t want a recursive response, don’t ask for one. Set RD=0 in the request. Mark > On 21 Feb 2024, at 09:15, Mark Andrews <marka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Mark Andrews <marka@xxxxxxx> >> Subject: draft-ietf-add-resolver-info-10 is no implementable as stands >> Date: 20 February 2024 at 11:36:30 AEDT >> To: ietf <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >> >> >> draft-ietf-add-resolver-info-10 changes the standard DNS QUERY processing >> failed to specify what happens when the QNAME is NOT the name that is >> supposed to be used with the resolver. >> >> "The content of the RDATA in a response to a RESINFO RR type query is >> defined in Section 5. If the resolver understands the RESINFO RR >> type, the RRSet in the Authority section MUST have exactly one >> record. The RESINFO in the Authority section reflects that the >> RESINFO is a property of the resolver and is not subject to recursive >> resolution.” >> >> There is no “Updates: RFC 1034” which this clearly does. There is no >> description of the changes to RFC 1034. >> >> -- >> Mark Andrews, ISC >> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia >> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx >> > > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
