does bind depends on system DNS settings for lookup?

[Tony Finch]

Darcy Kevin (FCA) <kevin.darcy at fcagroup.com> wrote:

> The latest "terminology clarification" attempt
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-05) is
> informed by the iterative/recursive distinction, inasmuch as it defines
> the terms "recursive mode", "recursive resolver", "recursive server",
> "iterative mode" and "iterative resolver". But I think those definitions
> are still confusing, because they don't squarely address the
> provider/consumer distinction -- an entity which *provides* resolution
> for incoming RD=1 queries typically uses (on its *consumer* side) RD=0
> queries to get the answer; so, is it "recursive" or "iterative" or
> *both*? RFC 4697's definition of an "iterative resolver" purely in
> *consumer* terms ("sends queries"), is distinguished in this new draft
> only in terms of the *provider* interface ("responds with a referral to
> another server"). Also, the attempt, in that draft, to clarify
> "recursive server" talks about it having a "name server side" and a
> "resolver side", but the term "name server" is never actually defined in
> the document (amazingly!). I think I'll raise these as problems with the
> draft.

Please do, though be aware that the current rough draft is going to be
published as an RFC -
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg14628.html

The plan is to do a follow-up version as a second RFC, so your comments
will be helpful towards making the second version better.

My suggested clarifications to the recursive / iterative definitions
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg14243.html
were rejected on the grounds that they should be considered for the
second RFC.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot at dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
North Utsire, South Utsire: Northerly 5 to 7, becoming cyclonic 4 at times.
Moderate or rough, occasionally very rough. Wintry showers. Good, occasionally
moderate.