Subject: Re: comment on "DNSSEC Operational Practices" Term

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:49:04 +0100

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:51:25 -0500
"Scott Rose" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The punchline:  Everyone read the protocol draft and see if you agree with
> the current wording on sections 3 and 4 regarding caching nameservers and
> resolvers (please).  And read the operational practices draft (please. It is
> another needed draft IMHO).

FYI that draft is: 
    draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-00.txt
It is under review in DNSOP.

The practices document will need to be in sync with whatever proto sais, not 
the other way around.

-- Olaf

---------------------------------| Olaf M. Kolkman
---------------------------------| RIPE NCC

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:36:39 -0800 (PST)

> 
> There is one disagreement between the DNSSEC Operational Practices draft and
> the DNSSECbis Protocol draft.  That is how to classify and handle "BAD" RR
> sets in responses.
> 
> The Appendix in the operational draft states that "BAD data is not cached."
> However, the proto doc states that a resolver may want to have a "BAD" data
> cache for various reasons.  Under normal circumstances, a resolver will not
> want to cache proven BAD data (however you want to define BAD), but there
> are cases where it might be useful for the resolver to have a BAD data
> cache.

	the protocol draft has it right.

--bill

---

From: Miek Gieben <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:47:42 +0100

[On 28 Oct, @16:36, bmanning wrote in "Re: comment on "DNSSEC Operati ..."]
> 	the protocol draft has it right.

ok, to stop this from lingering on, I changed to ops-draft already. Change wil
be in 01.

grtz Miek