In message <B42E8628-7F12-40F4-B74C-598116D0AF17(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>, Jari
Arkko writes:
If that is something you want, this document is certainly not the
place to do it. That's a protocol specification change, and this
document is not altering the DNS protocol in any way.
Best regards,
Well reflecting back the bit isn't permitted and requiring that
such queries get answered are parts of the existing specification
which are not being followed. Requiring just these parts be correctly
followed will make future deployment easier.
For what it is worth, I agree with Andrew that this document is
not a protocol specification, and these other things belong
elsewhere. And it seems you have a draft already, so...
There is follow the existing RFC and clean up ambiguities. The
error code selection is cleanup. The non reflecting of reserved
bit and correct EDNS behaviour are existing behaviour. Expecting
root servers to follow the defined parts of the protocol should be
a no brainer.
The draft-andrews-dns-no-response-issue isn't formally changing
anything. It is pointing out a real problem and it is requesting
that parent zone operators, in particular TLD and public SLD
operators, regularly audit the servers that they are delegating
namespace to for compliance and to report non-compliance even if
that has to go through a intermeditory. It's also providing something
that the delegated zone operators / nameserver vendors can check
their servers with.
I'm not sure that it would be the best document to update RFC
103[45]. It would be scope creep to do so. I think something more
like RFC 2181 would be more appopriate for that. I don't mind
working on such a document.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org