Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 03:18:57PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:

> what would "to work" mean in the above text?

"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).  The point is in
contrast to the downward referrals case, which _must_ work or
delegation doesn't.  I'm nervous about someone running off saying,
"IETF says referrals don't work," which is clearly not the point.

> that an upward referral could "work" in the above-reference sense seems to
> imply that the authority server you've queried, knows more about where the
> zone really is, than you could learn by walking down from the root. that's a
> walking talking nonsequitur. could you tell me what you really mean by "to
> work" since it can't possibly be that?

Indeed, it is not that.  Suggestions on how to make this clearer are
welcome.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]