Subject: Re: RFC2181 section 9.1: TC bit handling and additional data

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:46:34 +0300 (EEST)

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] ¿ÀÌÀÃ£ºÈ wrote:
>> Specific questions (offlist responses are also fine):
>
> Did you get sufficient information about these questions?  As far as I
> know, there has been no public response on the list.  If there has
> been no off-list response either, I'll try to answer the questions on
> one implementation I know of a bit.

There has been no response at all.  I guess everyone is hoping someone 
else will be responding.  I'd really appreciate any responses.

Thanks!

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:10:37 +0900

[ Moderators note: Post was moderated, either because it was posted by
   a non-subscriber, or because it was over 20K.  
   With the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore 
   delete relevant posts by non-subscribers. 
   Please fix your subscription addresses. ]

>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:00:36 +0300 (EEST), 
>>>>> Pekka Savola <[email-masked]> said:

> In the process of finalizing draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-issues-xx.txt, 
> we've had off-list discussion about TC bit handling when the 
> criticial/courtesy additional data section should include both A and 
> AAAA records.

> We would like to get some additional feedback especially on what's in 
> the implementations out there (the recommendations in the 
> specification seem clear enough).

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

--
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: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:04:58 +0900

>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:46:34 +0300 (EEST), 

> else will be responding.  I'd really appreciate any responses.

Okay.  One quick question:

  3. if your implementation (or the implemenations you're familiar
     with) receives a response with TC bit set and an additional
     section, what does it do?

Does this mean "if the implementation receives a response with TC bit
set and *with* a (non empty) additional section..."?

					JINMEI, Tatuya