In message <201203081845.q28ijgf0006...@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>, Martin Rex writes : > Tony Finch wrote: > > > > Murray S. Kucherawy <m...@cloudmark.com> wrote: > > > > > > I looked at least at the titles of all the documents that update 1035, > > > and none of them appear to be related to the above. So where should we > > > be looking? > > > > The only thing I have found that implies NOTIMP doesn't apply to queries > > for unknown RR types is in RFC 4074, "Common Misbehavior Against DNS > > Queries for IPv6 Addresses": > > Thanks for mentioning rfc 4074. The stuff in that document matches > the thoroughly broken behaviour of the IPv6 DNS resolver client of > Windows 2003 that I had encountered just recently. > > IMO, rfc4074 exhibits a significant amount of cluelessness about DNS, > the "Full Standard" document maturity level, and the realities of > backwards compatibilities for an incredibly huge installed base.
So not answering a query because the type is 28 matches RFC 1034 behaviour? DNS is a query/response protocol. So returning NXDOMAIN because the query type is 28 when you have type 1 in the database matches RFC 1034 behaviour? Returning A record content in software written *after* type code 28 was defined matched RFC 103[45] behaviour? The same servers shove A rdata into TXT rdata. Everything is a A record. > The answer to the question "what can I infer from a failed AAAA lookup" > must be deduced from STD 13 **ALONE**, and it amounts to "very close to > nothing at all". > > Now this puts the slow adoption of IPv6 into perspective if it takes > the IPv6 crowds >10 years to figure that one out, > > > -Martin > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
