Hi all,
I think it is much easier for reviewers to always be able to see the latest version of a draft, and so I'm trying to integrate changes and then publish new version often.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM David C Lawrence <tale@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > In Section 7.1.1, can you add a sentence or reference to explain "lame
> > delegation"? I recognize that this type of error results when a name
> > server is designated as the authoritative server for a domain name and
> > that server does not have authoritative data.
>
> [ AUTHORS: This was a term that was left out of the terminology draft. Do
> you have any suggestions for how we can reword this to remove the need for
> the term? ]
"... to distinguish the respone from one where the Authoritative
Nameserver is not responsible for the name, which is a common
convention for the REFUSED status."
Nice.
Integrated.
> > Section 7.4 says: "Several other implementations, however, do not
> > support being able to mix positive and negative answers, and thus
> > interoperability is a problem." Then, the next paragraph says that
> > this topic will be revisited in a future specification. Is there any
> > advice that the authors can share as a step toward interoperability
> > that would be useful for implementers until the future specification
> > comes about?
>
> [ AUTHORS: Any text for here? ]
The current situation is such that I think it is best just to say only
something like, "It is recommended that no specific behaviour
regarding negative answers be relied upon."
Done.
Posted -06
W
Personally my proposal is going to be that negative answers be allowed
to be scoped the same way that positive answers can be, but I don't
expect it to be without some controversy and it wouldn't be right for
me to insert by own bias into this document -- especially since Wilmer
is one of the people who has said that he doesn't think ECS should be
able to be used with negative answers.