Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 02:37:20AM +0000, Evan Hunt wrote:
> 
> I think the phrasing is unclear because "this response is not required to
> work" is ambiguous. The response *itself* doesn't have to work?  Or the
> resolver can get along without this response?  I took it to mean the
> latter, but I see how it could be confusing.

Yep, got it.

> I'd suggest something like "this response is not strictly speaking
> necessary, as it provides no information the resolver didn't already
> have; resolution can succeed without it."

How about, "This kind of response is not required for resolution or
for correctly answering any query, and in practice some authoritative
server operators will not return referral responses beyond those
required for delegation"?

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]