Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Excellent point!  Thanks.

-- 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums

----------
On November 28, 2017 15:40:14 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

> The AA bit may or may not be set depending upon whether the response contains
> a CNAME/DNAME or not.
>
>> On 29 Nov 2017, at 6:50 am, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> Joe Abley and I have just submitted a draft
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-dnsop-refer-down/)
>> that is intended to capture the discussion here about referrals and
>> how to describe them.  It is intended for BCP, and it discourages
>> upward referrals by authoritative servers.
>>
>> That leaves the task of the referrals definition.  I have some new
>> text below:
>>
>> ---%<---cut here---
>>
>> Referral: A type of response in which a server, signalling that it is
>> not authoritative for an answer, provides the querying resolver with
>> an alternative place to send its query.  A referral contains an empty
>> answer section.  It contains the NS RRset for the referred-to zone in
>> the authority section.  It may contain RRs that provide addresses in
>> the additional section.  The AA bit is clear.
>>
>> There are two types of referral response.  The first is a downward
>> referral (sometimes described as "delegation response"), where the
>> server is authoritative for some portion of the QNAME.  The Authority
>> section RRset's RDATA contains the name servers specified at the
>> referred-to zone cut.  In normal DNS operation, this kind of response
>> is required in order to find names beneath a delegation.
>>
>> The second is an upward referral (sometimes described as "root
>> referral" or just "referral response", as distinct from the delegation
>> response above), where the server is not authoritative for any portion
>> of the QNAME.  When this happens, the referred-to zone in the
>> Authority section is usually the root zone (.).  In normal DNS
>> operation, this kind of response is not strictly speaking required to
>> work, and in practice some authoritative server operators will not
>> return referral responses beyond those required for delegation.
>>
>> [optional: see draft-sullivan-dnsop-refer-down-00 or whatever.  We'll
>> only include this reference if the other draft reaches WG consensus
>> before terminology-bis]
>>
>> ---cut here--->%---
>>
>> Comments, please.  Also, Joe and I solicit comments on the referrals
>> draft proper, but it would be nice to put that in a different thread.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> A
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop