Re: [DNSOP] Comment on section 2 of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05.txt

[Shumon Huque <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> I'd written up a response, but perhaps the intent of the text is fine.
> The way it is written is what is throwing me.
>
> Perhaps instead of this:
>
> #   When an iterative caching DNS resolver receives a response NXDOMAIN,
> #   it SHOULD store it in its cache and all names and RRsets at or below
> #   that node SHOULD then be considered to be unreachable.
>
> When an iterative caching DNS resolver receives a response with RCODE
> being NXDOMAIN, the resolver SHOULD store the response in its (negative)
> cache.  During the time the response is cached, any query with a QNAME at
> or descended from the denied name that is not otherwise cached
> (positively), can be assumed to result in a name error.  Responses to those
> queries SHOULD set RCODE=NXDOMAIN (using the DNSSEC records cached as
> proof).
>
> ...that's not the best wording either - but "unreachable" is not a term
> I'd use.  I'm not sure "negative cache" and "positive cache" are recognized
> terms.
>

I'd suggest replacing "unreachable" with "non-existent":

#   When an iterative caching DNS resolver receives an NXDOMAIN response,
#   it SHOULD store it in its (negative) cache and all names and RRsets at
or below
#   that node SHOULD then be considered non-existent.

-- 
Shumon Huque