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

[Shumon Huque <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Pounsett <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On 28 September 2016 at 06:42, Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/27/16, 18:46, "Matthew Pounsett" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >Would it be better then to leave early expiry as an implementation choice
>>
>>
>> Ultimately, the goal of the draft is to tell a recursive server that if
>> it can conclusively deduce existence of a name from what it has cached, it
>> is allowed to do so.  Today if the conclusion is positive, that's how it
>> is.  The draft proposes to add negative conclusions as well.  Perhaps
>> getting into the details of managing what's in the cache, which is not
>> covered beyond TTL expiry "rules" is causing the wrapping around the axle.
>> (We are talking about the fairly odd example of there being conflicting
>> data.)
>>
>>
> Taking the view that this is only about interoperability, then I would say
> the implementor MAY treat names below the NXDOMAIN response as nonexistent,
> and MAY choose to expire those names early... perhaps with a suggestion
> that this might be the better choice for data coherence, but still leave it
> up to the implementor if they've got a better reason to do it otherwise.
>

The draft (by working group consensus) is written as "SHOULD treat names
below as non-existent", but "MAY continue to answer existing positive
cached entries". I think this managed to cover or at least placate all
positions expressed by working group participants leading up to the last
call.

I'm not sure we'll get new agreement on your proposed revision.

-- 
Shumon Huque