IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] (version 2)Re: Re: draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions

"Jiankang Yao" <yaojk@cnnic.cn> Sun, 30 October 2016 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
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 BC68A129566 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 06:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 4gvwEAOYxpb5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 06:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9068A12955E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 06:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ajax-webmail-ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) ; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 21:49:00 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
X-CM-HeaderCharset: UTF-8
X-Originating-IP: [218.241.102.150]
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 21:49:00 +0800
From: Jiankang Yao <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Coremail Webmail Server Version XT3.0.5b dev build 20150108(58896.7041) Copyright (c) 2002-2016 www.mailtech.cn cnnic
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqdZGaGmm8t3rT45OkAJobZdWmRKLk0OxWFmOvPe8O_51Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <11d1f4be.4df.157f6fc72c7.Coremail.yaojk@cnnic.cn> <CAJE_bqd8teOXgUU6uok1K11y=C=txGKYeujbK9PC797wHU9WtA@mail.gmail.com> <20161026145448066186130@cnnic.cn> <CAJE_bqdZGaGmm8t3rT45OkAJobZdWmRKLk0OxWFmOvPe8O_51Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-SendMailWithSms: false
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2da1b6a3.13a.15815d9bbc2.Coremail.yaojk@cnnic.cn>
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0BZholM+hVYoOAsBw--.1593W
X-CM-SenderInfo: x1dryyw6fq0xffof0/1tbiAQAEDSVCN1R2KAABsT
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Ur529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7IcSsGvfJ3iIAIbVAYjsxI4VW7Jw CS07vEb4IE77IF4wCS07vE1I0E4x80FVAKz4kxMIAIbVAFxVCaYxvI4VCIwcAKzIAtYxBI daVFxhVjvjDU=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/m-6Ewq917uFuye-aaGMxOkEKmWc>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, vixie <vixie@fsi.io>
Subject: [DNSOP] (version 2)Re: Re: draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 13:49:11 -0000

Dear Jinmei-san,

   We have updated it to a new version.

  https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-02.txt


   We hope that the new version has addressed all your concerns.

   Thanks a lot for your kind comments to help to improve this document.


Best Regards,
Jiankang Yao


> -----原始邮件-----
> 发件人: "神明達哉" <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
> 发送时间: 2016-10-28 00:46:17 (星期五)
> 收件人: yaojk <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
> 抄送: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, vixie <vixie@fsi.io>
> 主题: Re: [DNSOP] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-01.txt
> 
> At Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:55:49 +0800,
> "Jiankang Yao" <yaojk@cnnic.cn> wrote:
> 
> > >If it's also intended to be used between recursive and
> > >   authoritative, how does it handle a delegation answer?
> >
> > Most RRs needed to parallel query are normally located in the same zone.
> 
> That's probably true, but since this proposal is quite generic we
> can't simply assume that in the description of the protocol.
> 
> > In case of that some sub-domain names are delegated, the Delegation information will be returned to the recursive server.
> > the recursive server then check the sub-domain based on the Delegation information and get the answer.
> 
> I don't disagree with that as a high level observation.  But my point
> in the question was that if it's supposed to work for delegation, it
> should describe how it should work more clearly (specifically what
> will be answered in the response from the authoritative server, and
> specifically how the recursive server should react to it, etc).
> 
> > > - Should we assume SOA('s) in the authority section for negative
> > >   answers?
> >
> > yes.
> 
> IMO things like this should also be explicitly included in the doc.
> 
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email