Dear Jinmei-san, We have updated it to a new version.
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-02.txt We hope that the new version has addressed all your concerns. Thanks a lot for your kind comments to help to improve this document. Best Regards, Jiankang Yao > -----原始邮件----- > 发件人: "神明達哉" <jin...@wide.ad.jp> > 发送时间: 2016-10-28 00:46:17 (星期五) > 收件人: yaojk <ya...@cnnic.cn> > 抄送: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, vixie <vi...@fsi.io> > 主题: Re: [DNSOP] Fw: New Version Notification for > draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-01.txt > > At Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:55:49 +0800, > "Jiankang Yao" <ya...@cnnic.cn> wrote: > > > >If it's also intended to be used between recursive and > > > authoritative, how does it handle a delegation answer? > > > > Most RRs needed to parallel query are normally located in the same zone. > > That's probably true, but since this proposal is quite generic we > can't simply assume that in the description of the protocol. > > > In case of that some sub-domain names are delegated, the Delegation > > information will be returned to the recursive server. > > the recursive server then check the sub-domain based on the Delegation > > information and get the answer. > > I don't disagree with that as a high level observation. But my point > in the question was that if it's supposed to work for delegation, it > should describe how it should work more clearly (specifically what > will be answered in the response from the authoritative server, and > specifically how the recursive server should react to it, etc). > > > > - Should we assume SOA('s) in the authority section for negative > > > answers? > > > > yes. > > IMO things like this should also be explicitly included in the doc. > > -- > JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
