IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] NXDOMAINs as in RFC 1034

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Tue, 29 May 2018 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD10B12EAC1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 May 2018 08:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p2xO11IJvnDS for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 May 2018 08:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CAB312EB35 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 May 2018 08:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:fdff:12ad:acf5:9a06] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:fdff:12ad:acf5:9a06]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BFE689291; Tue, 29 May 2018 15:56:57 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <5B0D7846.9070306@redbarn.org>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 08:56:54 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.25 (Windows/20180328)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
CC: muks@mukund.org, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <20180528181236.GB26171@jurassic> <CAHPuVdX8D38XfB98gRuBYr+Vn9v_j_5rxY12R+AF0Cyz04Ggag@mail.gmail.com> <20180529054503.GA8413@jurassic> <CAHPuVdWmAraeQT7nQ71vTZJBAESO5+dUROuacbEA_S7kQfvayA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHPuVdWmAraeQT7nQ71vTZJBAESO5+dUROuacbEA_S7kQfvayA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0BxvtQIicjIRPSu11_8dXQs3fJc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] NXDOMAINs as in RFC 1034
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 15:56:59 -0000


Shumon Huque wrote:
> ...
>
> Ah, great. I couldn't remember whether 1034 described this
> explicitly. Thanks for quoting the relevant sentences. My point was
> that 1034 did not use the term "Empty Non Terminal", although as you
> point out here, it clearly describes the concept (an interior node
> with no resource information, and that this node exists).

i coined the term "empty non-terminal" because i wanted to be understood 
by an audience who was never going to study RFC 1034 in sufficient 
detail to know what an "empty interior node" was. i now wish i had said 
"empty non-leaf", since "leaf" as used by RFC 1034 would have been 
easier to understand than "terminal".

-- 
P Vixie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email