Re: Proposed resolution: PTR queries for 254.169.in-addr.arpa

Rob Austein <[email protected]> writes:

> Well, I thought we had a compromise, but Stuart appears to be having
> second thoughts, so I guess we're back to square one.

> At Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:39:07 +0100, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> > 
> > >Recursive name servers MUST NOT allow these queries to
> > >escape the local scope.  Recursive name servers MAY reply
> > >with RCODE 3, or they MAY silently discard the request.
> > 
> > This text I have some reservations about. It suffers from the 
> > all-to-common disease that "we couldn't decide, so we'll agree to 
> > disagree".

> Yes, it does.  It should have just required recursive name servers to
> reply with RCODE 3 rather than allowing them to drop queries silently,
> but some of us were trying to be nice and compromise with those who
> claim that silently dropping queries is better than answering them.

I agree. Personally, I think  we should just say that recursive
servers MUST, by default, respond with RCODE=3. I can live with
SHOULD, but if you read what SHOULD means  in 2119:

	3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that
	   there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances
	   to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must
	   be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a
	   different course.

I do not see right off what "valid reason may exist" to do anything
other than than RCODE=3 _as_ _a_ _default_.

If there is such  a reason, please remind me what it is.

Thomas