IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Wed, 29 November 2017 02:39 UTC

Return-Path: <each@isc.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 31F321287A5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 18:39:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 jZM0nH38bj7t for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 18:38:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1758712783A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 18:38:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [149.20.48.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE9923B60BA; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 02:37:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id A90CE216C1C; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 02:37:20 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 02:37:20 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171129023720.GA99800@isc.org>
References: <20171112075445.tf2ut5dxzhhnqe7l@mx4.yitter.info> <20171128195025.ifzwsjk42wz7ard6@mx4.yitter.info> <5A1DEEE1.3070809@redbarn.org> <20171129014748.7rrm2tvwdnjdl6ss@mx4.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171129014748.7rrm2tvwdnjdl6ss@mx4.yitter.info>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/MTd-8CqPAFtHQVNZ62SDPozswf0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 02:39:00 -0000

> "Not strictly speaking required to work" was intended to observe that,
> if you didn't get a referral under this condition, nothing ought to
> break (or, if it did, it was already broken). 

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.

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."

-- 
Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email