Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ogud-dnsop-any-notimp-00.txt

[Ralf Weber <[e-mail]>]

Moin!

On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 02:53:34PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> i'd appreciate not having to argue about whether the term "ACL" is one
> of art or one of practice. let's talk about what we're trying to
> accomplish in terms of protocol revision, rather than talking about what
> specific application-specific words we shouldn't use when describing
> those accomplishments.
And I wasn't talking about that. My point was and still is that we
should make the ACL or hell what you call it not a requirement in
the draft, at least not one that is mandatory.

> >  There may be applications that
> > may want to have a default behavior, thus we should not put ACL in the
> > draft.
> 
> i don't understand this statement. make the default "nobody". i thought
> you were disagreeing?
See above. I am fine with a draft that says one can implement an ACL to
allow requests. Lets try with some text for the section 3 of the draft:

A Recursive Resolver can answer with RCODE=0/ANCOUNT=0 to an ANY query
rather than the current content of it's cache. A recursive resolver can
implement a mechanism to allow certain hosts access to the cache content
with an ANY query.

is that what you want? I would be fine with that. I just don't want a
MUST on the ACL thing.

So long
-Ralf