Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

"Michael J. Sheldon" <[e-mail]> writes:

Thanks Michael,

Thanks for the comments.  Responses are inline below in my tracking
notes below.

14.4 DONE Michael J. Sheldon" <[e-mail]>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

14.4.1 DONE In section 3.21
---------------------------

  3.21.  Extended DNS Error Code 20 - Lame

  An authoritative server that receives a query (with the RD bit clear)
  for a domain for which it is not authoritative SHOULD include this EDE
  code in the SERVFAIL response.  A resolver that receives a query (with
  the RD bit clear) SHOULD include this EDE code in the REFUSED
  response.

  The above case is not consistent with current authoritative server
  behavior.

  The authoritative servers I have tested all return REFUSED, not
  SERVFAIL, regardless of the query RD bit, when the server does not
  allow recursion, and the server is not authoritative for the zone.

  I would change to:


  3.21.  Extended DNS Error Code 20 - Not Authoritative

  An authoritative server that receives a query (with the RD bit clear,
  or when not configured for recursion) for a domain for which it is not
  authoritative SHOULD include this EDE code in the REFUSED response.  A
  resolver that receives a query (with the RD bit clear) SHOULD include
  this EDE code in the REFUSED response.



  IMO, while "lame" is a valid term, quite frankly, it's not nearly as
  clear in meaning as just saying "not authoritative". To me, "lame" is
  at the delegation (referring server), not the targeted server.

  + Response: good catch and I like (and have put in) you replacements.
    I've never liked the "lame" name either, as I don't think it's
    descriptive to someone that isn't in the inner circle of DNS.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI