Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-04

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I think it is much easier for reviewers to always be able to see the latest
version of a draft, and so I'm trying to integrate changes and then publish
new version often.

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM David C Lawrence <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > > In Section 7.1.1, can you add a sentence or reference to explain "lame
> > > delegation"?  I recognize that this type of error results when a name
> > > server is designated as the authoritative server for a domain name and
> > > that server does not have authoritative data.
> >
> > [ AUTHORS: This was a term that was left out of the terminology draft. Do
> > you have any suggestions for how we can reword this to remove the need
> for
> > the term? ]
>
> "... to distinguish the respone from one where the Authoritative
> Nameserver is not responsible for the name, which is a common
> convention for the REFUSED status."
>

Nice.
Integrated.


>
> > > Section 7.4 says: "Several other implementations, however, do not
> > > support being able to mix positive and negative answers, and thus
> > > interoperability is a problem."  Then, the next paragraph says that
> > > this topic will be revisited in a future specification.  Is there any
> > > advice that the authors can share as a step toward interoperability
> > > that would be useful for implementers until the future specification
> > > comes about?
> >
> > [ AUTHORS: Any text for here? ]
>
> The current situation is such that I think it is best just to say only
> something like, "It is recommended that no specific behaviour
> regarding negative answers be relied upon."
>
>
Done.

Posted -06

W


> Personally my proposal is going to be that negative answers be allowed
> to be scoped the same way that positive answers can be, but I don't
> expect it to be without some controversy and it wouldn't be right for
> me to insert by own bias into this document -- especially since Wilmer
> is one of the people who has said that he doesn't think ECS should be
> able to be used with negative answers.
>