Subject: Re: EDNS1

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:00:46 +0200

Paul Vixie <[email-masked]> writes:

>> 4.6. If request FM was not set but QDCOUNT>1, then an initiator can infer the
>> absence of any RRs for one of the QTYPEs if the response contains no RRs of
>> that type but some RRs for one of the other QTYPEs present.

This does not rime well with DNSSEC.  How about the following?

  4.6. If request FM was not set but QDCOUNT>1, then an initiator can
  infer the absence of any RRs for one of the QTYPEs if the response
  either contains no RRs of that type but some RRs for one of the
  other QTYPEs present, or contains NXT/SIG RRs that indicate the
  absence of RRs of the QTYPE, depending on local security policy.

I don't find any discussion of how the additional field is populated
by intermediate servers.  Say I query for (foo.example.org, IN, MX
CERT), will the intermediate add any additional A records returned for
the MX query to the initial client?

--
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/>