Re: section 3.2 of protocol draft

[Miek Gieben <miekg@atoom.net>]

[On 08 Dec, @18:47, Scott wrote in "Re: section 3.2 of protocol dr ..."]
> That seems reasonable.  It might be a good idea to clarify that test
> to take different cases into consideration.  There is little danger in
> adding previously cached RR sets into the additional section of another

why is this dangerous? Isn't this the reason we have dnssec? If it is validated
I can cache it, if I can cache it, I can use it? With DNS this could be
potentially dangerous, with DNSSEC I cannot see why (if you only use validated
reponses).

> response - I haven't considered all the cases.  Or narrowing the
> restrictions to what (from cache) can and cannot
> be placed in the answer section of a response.
> 
> I believe it might be necessary to have stricter conditions on forming the
> answer section of a response, but be more liberal about using cached RR sets
> in the other sections.  Which I believe your example demonstrated.

ok,

grtz Miek

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