Re: [DNSOP] Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

On 19 Mar 2018, at 5:21, Matthijs Mekking wrote: Negative response: I and some others have been using the term 'Negative response' to indicate that the response does not contain any records in the Answer section. Current definition seems to imply that this is only the case if the RCODE is NX

Re: [DNSOP] Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

On 22 Apr 2018, at 12:13, Paul Hoffman wrote: Off-list: Or not so off-list. :-) --Paul Hoffman, now feeling more compassion for others who do this same stupid human trick year after year ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/

Re: [DNSOP] Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

Off-list: Thanks for your extensive notes! I have included many of them in the upcoming draft. I have also not included many others because you wanted us to use different words than what were in RFCs that we directly quoted from. In the places where your suggested wording was significant and

Re: [DNSOP] Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

On 5 Mar 2018, at 16:14, Paul Hoffman wrote: Greetings. As you can see, draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-09.txt is out. Reading the diff might be a bit difficult because of the reorganization of some sections that y'all asked for, but I think the result is worth the extra effort. We're still

Re: [DNSOP] Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

On 5 Mar 2018, at 08:14, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Greetings. As you can see, draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-09.txt is out. > Reading the diff might be a bit difficult because of the reorganization of > some sections that y'all asked for, but I think the result is worth the extra > effort. > >

Re: [DNSOP] Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

On 19-03-18 20:08, Matthew Pounsett wrote: On 19 March 2018 at 08:21, Matthijs Mekking > wrote: I and some others have been using the term 'Negative response' to indicate that the response does not contain any records in the Answer section. Current

Re: [DNSOP] Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

Matthew Pounsett wrote: ... I would suggest that only NXDOMAIN and NOERROR+ANCOUNT=0 are negative responses. SERVFAIL, FORMERR, and REFUSED are error responses; you do not know as a result of those responses whether the name/type tuple queried about exists. +1. -- P Vixie

Re: [DNSOP] Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

On 19 March 2018 at 08:21, Matthijs Mekking wrote: > I and some others have been using the term 'Negative response' to indicate > that the response does not contain any records in the Answer section. > Current definition seems to imply that this is only the case if the RCODE > is NXDOMAIN, NOERRO

Re: [DNSOP] Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

Hi, While I was not waiting for WG last call, it is a while ago since I have read this draft. Positive is that I read it without it leading to a lot of confusion or outrage. I have some small comments though. Negative response: I and some others have been using the term 'Negative response

[DNSOP] Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

Greetings. As you can see, draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-09.txt is out. Reading the diff might be a bit difficult because of the reorganization of some sections that y'all asked for, but I think the result is worth the extra effort. We're still not done yet. I took a hiatus from finishing t