To:
dnssec@cafax.se
From:
Peter Koch <pk@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
Date:
Thu, 13 May 2004 16:17:24 +0200
Content-ID:
<13898.1084457842.1@grimsvotn.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
In-reply-to:
Your message of "Thu, 13 May 2004 14:57:43 +0200." <20040513125743.GB5845@atoom.net>
Sender:
owner-dnssec@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: dnssec: resolver - application communication
Miek Gieben <miekg@atoom.net> wrote: > SERVFAIL -> requery with CD=1 -> SERVFAIL -> "real" SERVFAIL > SERVFAIL -> requery with CD=1 -> answer -> "NOTVAL" > > So: receiving two SERVFAILS signals something really broken, and > receiving one SERVFAIL signal a NOTVAL. I don't see why: in practice (i.e. without DNSSEC) there are corner cases where subsequent queries result in exactly that: first earns SERVFAIL, second gets the answer. So, if the difference between SERVFAIL and "NOTVAL" really matters, a third query may be necessary. There's another case with an "overloaded" error code (NOERROR/NODATA) and quite some people who believe that's not too clean. -Peter