On 2/25/17, 14:52, "Olafur Gudmundsson" wrote:
>...can not be any stronger than “SHOULD”...
And that is why it remains you "MUST" be liberal in what you accept. ;)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@iet
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:46:28PM +, Edward Lewis wrote:
>> The reason I point this out is that the order of records in a section has
>> been famously undefined, with the convention of supporting round robin
>> (an undocumented feature of
On 2/24/17, 12:35, "Evan Hunt" wrote:
> Well, that's why I started with an email thread...
I'm certainly *not* saying: "Don't do it!" (Sorry for the double negative.)
But the hours spent writing the code to handle the issue might be less than the
hours spent "producing" the clarification docume
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:46:28PM +, Edward Lewis wrote:
> The reason I point this out is that the order of records in a section has
> been famously undefined, with the convention of supporting round robin
> (an undocumented feature of the protocol) hanging around, for all of
> eternity. I ca
On 2/23/17, 18:24, "DNSOP on behalf of Evan Hunt" wrote:
>I'd like to start a discussion of that now. Does anyone have a problem
>with the idea of clarifying the protocol here, saying that the order of
>records in the answer section of a chaining response is significant, and in
>particular, that