On May 15 2019, Jim Reid wrote:
On 15 May 2019, at 12:55, Shane Kerr <sh...@time-travellers.org> wrote:
This seems like the most non-controversial document ever in the history
of documents.
A non-controversial DNS doc at the IETF? That'll be a first. :-)
Well, I am sure some nit-picking can be organised. As well as RFC 1035,
surely the admirably concise definition of a status query in section 3.8
of RFC 1034 deserves to be mentioned?
There is pre-history as well, of course. In RFC 883 the opcodes 2 and 3
were assigned to "completion queries" CQUERYM and CQUERYU. Or rather, they
would have been except for an obvious typo which actually assigns 2 to
both of them [top of page 27]. It's quite shocking that no-one ever seems
to have filed an official erratum against RFC 883 about this!
RFC 1996 assigned opcode 4 to NOTIFY without any explanation as to why 3
might be, in some sense, already reserved.
--
Chris Thompson
Email: c...@cam.ac.uk
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
