RE: [BEHAVE] auth48 changes to draft-ietf-behave-dns64

[Dmitry Anipko <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I have a question about the particular part of the suggested diff. The diff says:

>>Alternatively, *if configured to do so*, it MAY treat the answer as...

Does the part marked with stars imply that an implementation must support such configuration setting, or the support of such configuration setting is also covered by the following MAY?

Thank you,
Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 6:29 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; 'David Harrington'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] auth48 changes to draft-ietf-behave-dns64

I'm OK with these changes.

Jari

Dan Wing kirjoitti:
> During auth48 of draft-ietf-behave-dns64-11.txt, it was realized that 
> two sections were not consistent.
>
> The text in Section 5.1.1 is clear:
>
>    If there is (non-excluded) AAAA data available, DNS64
>    SHOULD NOT include synthetic AAAA RRs in the response (see Appendix A
>    for an analysis of the motivations for and the implications of not
>    complying with this recommendation).  By default, DNS64
>    implementations MUST NOT synthesize AAAA RRs when real AAAA RRs
>    exist
>
> That is, SHOULD NOT in the general case, and MUST NOT as a default case.
> This represents WG consensus.
>
>
> But then 5.1.4 says something slightly different:
>
>    If it receives an answer with at
>    least one AAAA record containing an address outside any of the
>    excluded range(s), then it MAY build an answer section for a response
>    including only the AAAA record(s) that do not contain any of the
>    addresses inside the excluded ranges.  That answer section is used in
>    the assembly of a response as detailed in Section 5.4.
>    Alternatively, it MAY treat the answer as though it were an empty
>    answer, and proceed accordingly.  It MUST NOT return the offending
>    AAAA records as part of a response.
>
> It seems rather self-defeating to have excluded ranges and then 
> ignore those.  Then the only issue is: if there are both an 
> excluded AAAA record and a non-excluded one, the above says you 
> can either return the good one, or not return any AAAA records. 
>
> The proposal is to change the "MAY build an answer section" in 5.1.4
> to "by default MUST build an answer section", so it would read as
> follows.  The critical changes are highlighted with "^":
>
>    When the DNS64 performs its initial AAAA query, if it receives an
>    answer with only AAAA records containing addresses in the excluded
>    range(s), then it MUST treat the answer as though it were an empty
> .....................^^^^
>    answer, and proceed accordingly.  If it receives an answer with at
>    least one AAAA record containing an address outside any of the
>    excluded range(s), then it by default SHOULD build an answer section
> .................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    for a response including only the AAAA record(s) that do not contain
>    any of the addresses inside the excluded ranges.  That answer section
>    is used in the assembly of a response as detailed in Section 5.4.
>    Alternatively, it MAY treat the answer as though it were an empty
>    answer, and proceed accordingly.  It MUST NOT return the offending
>    AAAA records as part of a response.
>  
> We believe this is in line with the WG consensus in section 5.1.1.
>
>
> The updated files are here:
>   http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6147.txt
>   http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6147.xml
>   http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6147-diff.html
>
>
> We are soliciting feedback for this change until noon (Prague time)
> on Friday, April 1.  Please send feedback to [e-mail].
>
> -d
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave