Martin Hoffmann wrote:
... So, I'll step on that mine: What really would help new implementers is a 1034bis.
i sympathize with this view, but here's my worry:
That having been said, a stronger document set written today would not be able to put all of the DNS genies back into their bottles. Too many implementations have guessed differently when presented with a loose specification, and interoperability today is a moving, organic target. When I periodically itch to rewrite the specification from scratch, I know there are too many things that must be said that also cannot be said. It’s as though, in a discussion of the meaning of some bit pattern, a modern description of the protocol—written with full perspective on all that has been done in the DNS field—would have to say, “It could mean x but some implementations will think it means y so you must be cautious.”
(https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1242499) what this means is, it's a difficult task. -- P Vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
