expedia.msn.com does not resolve

[Kevin Darcy]

Brad Knowles wrote:

> At 12:48 AM +0000 8/16/01, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> >  I don't think you're supposed to set the truncated flag if the overflow is
> >  due to records in the Additional Records section.
>
>         That is not my understanding, nor is that the way that BIND has
> ever worked (to the best of my knowledge).

RFC 2181, Section 9:

"The TC bit should be set in responses only when an RRSet is required as part of
the response, but could not be included in its entirety. The TC bit should not be
set merely because some extra information could have been included, but there was
insufficient room. This includes the results of additional section processing.
:In such cases, the entire RRSet that will not fit in the response should be
omitted, and the reply sent as is, with the TC bit clear."

So TC should not be set if truncation occurs in the Authority Section, unless of
course the response is a referral. And TC should not be set if truncation occurs
in the Additional Section of a referral, unless it means that glue records (which
are "required") would be omitted. At the same time, if TC is clear, partial
RRsets should *not* be transmitted. I think BIND has met _all_ of these
requirements only relatively recently.


- Kevin