Subject: comments on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-05

From: Scott Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:40:59 -0500

I just (quickly) read over the -05 version of the DNSSEC-bis-updates 
draft.  I noticed 2 typos and 1 issue that may have been resolved, but I 
can't remember.

Section 2.1, second para
"...and with the singer field that's shorter than..."  /singer/signer

Section 2.3 title
"Check for CNAMEa"   CNAMEs  or just CNAME?  I don't know if that matters.

Also, I remember on thing from MSJ's DNSSEC-SO draft:  In section 
2.3.2.2, third bullet item (in regards to recursive caching servers):

       The resolver side MUST also set the CD bit when sending queries
       when the CD bit is set in the initiating query.  [Note: The
       current behavior for a PNE recursive resolver may be in error.]

Has this been covered in a thread?  I don't remember.  In my mind, it 
may be necessary if there is some upstream cache in the middle.  The 
caching resolver still has the option (local policy) to perform 
validation after sending the response back to the originator for 
determining the cache status (BAD or not).

Scott

-- 
----------------------------------------
Scott Rose            Computer Scientist
NIST
ph: +1 301-975-8439
[email-masked]

http://www-x.antd.nist.gov/dnssec
http://www.dnssec-deployment.org/
-----------------------------------------

--
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/>