Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:07:41 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 248102] [local_unbound] default config file violates RFC Message-ID: <bug-248102-99-kkQprBM2eG@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-248102-99@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-248102-99@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D248102 --- Comment #5 from Walter von Entferndt <walter.von.entferndt@posteo.net> = --- (In reply to Rodney W. Grimes from comment #4) Thank you for supporting my suggestion, and referencing the much more appropriate RFC 6761 Section 6.1.4: "[...] Instead, caching DNS servers SHO= ULD, _by_ _default_, generate immediate (positive or negative) responses for all such queries. [...] Caching DNS servers SHOULD offer a configuration option (_disabled_ _by_ _default_) to enable upstream resolution of such names, [...]" (add. underlining to make clear to point of interest) Now again, since SHOULD/SHOULD NOT reads (RFC 1918): "[...] the case carefu= lly weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label." I want to repeat that a SHOULD/SHOULD NOT _must_ _not_ be overridden _arbitrarily_ just because it's not a MUST/MUST NOT. This is clearly /not/= the case: there can no weighting w/o knowing the special circumstances of the deploying network. Thus, a SHOULD/SHOULD NOT has _regularly_ to be taken l= ike MUST/MUST NOT for the domain of shipping default configurations. Very few exceptions may exist to this rule. In this case, I can not see any valid reason, no matter how hard I try. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-248102-99-kkQprBM2eG>