Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 03:18:57PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
what would "to work" mean in the above text?
"Not strictly speaking required to work" was intended to observe that,
if you didn't get a referral under this condition, nothing ought to
break (or, if it did, it
> "Not strictly speaking required to work" was intended to observe that,
> if you didn't get a referral under this condition, nothing ought to
> break (or, if it did, it was already broken).
I think the phrasing is unclear because "this response is not required to
work" is ambiguous. The response
When the CNAME refers to a name that is out of zone and the target zone is below
a zone that the server serves you will have CNAME (DNAME) + referral.
4.3.2 loops.
pass 1 -> 3a (adds CNAME, AA is set as it matches the question
section, QNAME is updated).
pass 2 -> 3b (we have
And you can have partial answer and with no referral data responses
which are confusable with NOERROR NODATA. We really should do
EDNS(1) and add NXRRSET to the list of rcodes for QUERY.
> On 29 Nov 2017, at 12:57 pm, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> You can answer only responses, you can have referral
Hi Mark,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:57:26PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> You can answer only responses, you can have referral only responses,
> you can partial answer + referral responses.
Where in the algorithm in section 4.3.2 of 1034 (or other, derived
cases like DNAME) is this "partial answer
You can answer only responses, you can have referral only responses,
you can partial answer + referral responses.
> On 29 Nov 2017, at 12:53 pm, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:46:07PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> GO READ STD13!
>
> I thought I had, and I thought indeed t
Yes, what I just sent. So how does one end up in 3.b with the AA bit
and still have a "referral" according to 1034, section 4.3.2?
A
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:49:48PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> AA Authoritative Answer - this bit is valid in responses,
> and specif
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:46:07PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> GO READ STD13!
I thought I had, and I thought indeed that I was quoting it to you (or
at least making references).
I _suspect_ that you're referring to 4.1.1 in 1035 which describes AA.
But that says that it "that the responding name
AA Authoritative Answer - this bit is valid in responses,
and specifies that the responding name server is an
authority for the domain name in question section.
Note that the contents of the answer section may have
multip
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 03:18:57PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
> what would "to work" mean in the above text?
"Not strictly speaking required to work" was intended to observe that,
if you didn't get a referral under this condition, nothing ought to
break (or, if it did, it was already broken). The
GO READ STD13!
> On 29 Nov 2017, at 12:44 pm, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 07:39:42AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> The AA bit may or may not be set depending upon whether the response contains
>> a CNAME/DNAME or not.
>>
>
> I replied with an enthusiastic "tha
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 07:39:42AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> The AA bit may or may not be set depending upon whether the response contains
> a CNAME/DNAME or not.
>
I replied with an enthusiastic "thanks" because this struck me as
obviously correct, but then I though I'd better look at
Excellent point! Thanks.
--
Please excuse my clumbsy thums
--
On November 28, 2017 15:40:14 Mark Andrews wrote:
The AA bit may or may not be set depending upon whether the response contains
a CNAME/DNAME or not.
On 29 Nov 2017, at 6:50 am, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Dear colleagues
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Joe Abley and I have just submitted a draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-dnsop-refer-down/)
that is intended to capture the discussion here about referrals and
how to describe them. It is intended for BCP, and it discourages
upward r
The AA bit may or may not be set depending upon whether the response contains
a CNAME/DNAME or not.
> On 29 Nov 2017, at 6:50 am, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Joe Abley and I have just submitted a draft
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-dnsop-refer-down/)
>
Dear colleagues,
Joe Abley and I have just submitted a draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-dnsop-refer-down/)
that is intended to capture the discussion here about referrals and
how to describe them. It is intended for BCP, and it discourages
upward referrals by authoritative s
On Nov 27, 2017, 11:47 AM -0800, Richard Barnes , wrote:
> I don't think that it make sense to infer from the failure of RFC 8145 that
> resolver/authoritative telemetry isn't possible
Huh? RFC 8145 wasn’t a failure — it was stunningly successful. Within a few
months of publication it provided
17 matches
Mail list logo
