Rick van Rein
rick at openfortress.nl
Mon May 30 07:43:59 UTC 2016
Thanks for the additional info.
>> Resultant state | Secure | Bogus | Nxdomain
>> happy | 0 | 1 | 0
>> extatic | 1 | 0 | 0
> Adding nxdomain to the list is weird. Also the table misses the
> secure=0, bogus=0 entry. You are happy with dnssec failure (bogus?),
> i.e. dnssec is deployed but fails? I think the name is wrong.
Oh, it's an example of the format of a table that would be of use. The
names happy / extactic are just meant as meaningless dribble. I hadn't
assumed you would take me seriously ;-)
What I was trying to say is that a table of this kind is both easier to
keep complete in the documentation, and it gives developers a better
overview of how flags relate. I imagine this to lead to confusion and
misinterpretations due to the wordy form and the (sometimes confusing)
relations between the flags.
>> This could help us determine in what order to probe flags, and whether
>> there may be flavours of Nxdomain, for instance.
> I would recommend first looking at the bogus and secure flags.
> Then see if there is data, nxdomain, havedata.
> Then look at the data.
>> I hope I didn't miss any of the documentation!
> The comments in the unbound.h header file? The libunbound man page?
I didn't see the header file yet,
More information about the Unbound-users