At Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:12:43 +0100 (CET), Ondřej Surý <ondrej.s...@nic.cz> wrote:
> > Yes, it is. Otherwise, what would be the point of using the NS in the > > parent instead of the authoritative one? > > Let me rephrase it, the assumption here is that parent NS are: > "as good as they get to resolve the names underneath", and that > doesn't mean they are necessarily more or less "correct" than > child NS. I'm not sure how you can be so sure about the author's assumption when the draft itself doesn't explicitly clarify the assumption (maybe based on an off-list conversation with Fujiwara-san?), but if that's actually the assumption, the current draft text is IMO so confusing and misleading. In that sense I'm with Bob and Stephan, and the draft should be much clearer on the assumption. And IMO, with the assumption *corrected*, the draft's recommendation becomes even less convincing to me. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
