Trying to get full domain info in nslookup

[Barry Margolin]

In article <dhcjvd$2i0v$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
 Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:

> Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> >>QTYPE=* (otherwise known as "any") queries are treated by BIND as 
> >>non-recursive-when-something-is-cached-for-the-name-recursive-otherwise 
> >>because of a misreading of RFC 1034 that has never been corrected.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >	In your opinion.  Please re-read Section 6.2.2.   It clearly
> >	show the caching servers returning subsets of records.
> >
> In response to a *non-recursive* query, sure. All of the example queries 
> in Section 6.2.2 are RD=0 unless otherwise noted (see the intro 
> paragraph at 6.2). Nowhere in 1034/1035 is it permitted to treat an RD=1 
> query as RD=0 and yet return the response as RA=1, which is what BIND 
> does. That's just fibbing. Of course, BIND or any DNS implementation for 
> that matter, can decline to recurse a query but a) this decision should 
> IMO be policy-driven, not hardcoded for QTYPE=* queries, and b) the 
> responding server shouldn't *lie* about whether it is honoring recursion 
> or not. Don't you think it kind of defeats the whole purpose of the RA 
> bit if responders can set it any way they want, for any arbitrary reason?

I think this all hinges on the interpretation of step 1 in section 5.3.3:

   1. See if the answer is in local information, and if so return
      it to the client.

If you have some records for a name in the local information, is that 
"the answer" to a QTYPE=* query?  It's up to interpretation, so I don't 
think you can definitively claim that the BIND developers' 
interpretation is a "misreading".

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***