IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Wed, 29 November 2017 19:38 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 27CC1128954 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:38:33 -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 FrsbIwaAdeYJ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:38:32 -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 E8F4E126C22 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:38:31 -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 B9EE73B1E28; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:37:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id A20BE216C1C; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:37:31 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:37:31 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171129193731.GB35419@isc.org>
References: <20171112075445.tf2ut5dxzhhnqe7l@mx4.yitter.info> <20171128195025.ifzwsjk42wz7ard6@mx4.yitter.info> <5A1DEEE1.3070809@redbarn.org> <20171129014748.7rrm2tvwdnjdl6ss@mx4.yitter.info> <20171129023720.GA99800@isc.org> <20171129122553.oyx5ftqoifbnkw7h@anvilwalrusden.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171129122553.oyx5ftqoifbnkw7h@anvilwalrusden.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/QwE1irIB_gJf91NWfTDqvSxNsp4>
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 19:38:33 -0000

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 07:25:53AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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"?

Up to the comma looks fine. The part after the comma strikes me
as over-wordy, and I suggest "and there is no requirement that
authoritative servers send them".

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email