Paul Vixie wrote:
>we're going to give the URL syntax a way to designate a server other than
>the one which is authoritatively responsible for the data, or a local caching
>resolver (also called a "recursive nameserver"), then we need to be able to
>set the RD bit.
What I understand you saying in the above is that when querying a
non-authoritative nameserver we need to have RD=1 in the query so
that we'll get an answer even if the nameserver doesn't have the answer
already cached. This is true, but it is a detail of the query mechanism;
why does it need to be represented explicitly in the URI? Or, to put it
another way, what about the current URI definition requires queries to
be made with RD=0? I'm not sure I've correctly understood what you've
said, so these questions might not make much sense.
My understanding of the hostport part of the syntax is that it allows
one to specify which server's view of the domain name space one will
look at. (Particularly with split DNS, this makes a difference.)
Where it's not specified, presumably the default will be one's configured
recursive resolver, which actually is not necessarily accessed by the DNS
protocol over UDP as is implied where the hostport part is specified.
(The draft says "Unless specified in the URI, the server ("hostport")
is assumed to be locally known".) You seem to see the default as being
whatever nameserver is authoritative for the data addressed by the URI,
which suggests that you have a radically different idea of the semantics
of the hostport syntax. How do you see it working?
-zefram
--
Andrew Main (Zefram) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
