Re: [DNSOP] Comment on section 2 of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05.txt

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

On 9/26/16, 20:49, "Mark Andrews" <[e-mail]> wrote:
    
>No.  SHOULD is not MUST.  Every SHOULD has a implict UNLESS
><unspecified reason>.  In this case we actually have a reason for
>the why the second and third SHOULD are not MUSTs.
>   
>    I could turn first SHOULD into a MUST and still reach the MAY.
 
I have to admit I don't quite understand that response.  (This coming after reading some children's books by Roald Dahl where he just makes up words and tries to explain them.)

I'd written up a response, but perhaps the intent of the text is fine.  The way it is written is what is throwing me.

Perhaps instead of this:

#   When an iterative caching DNS resolver receives a response NXDOMAIN,
#   it SHOULD store it in its cache and all names and RRsets at or below
#   that node SHOULD then be considered to be unreachable.  

When an iterative caching DNS resolver receives a response with RCODE being NXDOMAIN, the resolver SHOULD store the response in its (negative) cache.  During the time the response is cached, any query with a QNAME at or descended from the denied name that is not otherwise cached (positively), can be assumed to result in a name error.  Responses to those queries SHOULD set RCODE=NXDOMAIN (using the DNSSEC records cached as proof).

...that's not the best wording either - but "unreachable" is not a term I'd use.  I'm not sure "negative cache" and "positive cache" are recognized terms.


>Temporal issues are not new.

There is something oddly ironic about that statement.