Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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).

that's fatally unclear.

> ... 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.

then the thing to say would be "a referral should always be downward, 
and if a non-downward referral is received, it should be treated as a 
network data configuration error".

>> 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.

Evan Hunt wrote:
> 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."

i don't think we can walk this path without touching the "should" fire.

-- P Vixie