> On Nov 24, 2016, at 01:05, Matthijs Mekking <matth...@pletterpet.nl> wrote: > > In section 2.1.1 there is a note on an in 2016 standards non-compliant > resolver. Having RFCs (to be) note that other RFCs are not safe to assume its > implemented is a bit ridiculous to me. It is a given that there are bugs, and > thus it can be said of any RFC that it is not safe to assume it is > implemented correctly. I suggest to drop the paragraphs starting from "Note > that at least one in 2016 case..."
The title is "Observations on ..." so practical experiences with what might happen seem relevant. If you look at it from the perspective of someone implementing a resolver then it provides an example of what not to do (I think). :-) Ask _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
