Hi,
First, let me be clear that I am (personally) not now, nor have I ever
been, a member of the resolver implementation party; so my opinion is
biased about what is obvious. If various resolver-writers were to
chime in to say that what is obvious to you is obvious to them too
(and I don't think
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 08:21:14PM +, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> Interestingly enough, Steve Sheng and I wrote just such a document a
> number of years ago (around the time of the initial name-collisions
> drama). Even though I'm 95% sure it included the phrase "tilting at
> windmills" my searc
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 9:21 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi Warren,
>
> I think the advice is good, but I wonder what the practical effect of writing
> it down would be. I doubt it would change any of the entrenched habits in
> enterprise systems and networking in our remaining lifetimes, for examp
On Feb 10, 2018, at 16:27, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Well, for example, when the DHC working group was considering the search list
> option for DHCPv6, I argued that there should be no such option because
> search lists are bad. My argument was rejected. Had the IETF officially
> deprecated searc
Well, for example, when the DHC working group was considering the search
list option for DHCPv6, I argued that there should be no such option
because search lists are bad. My argument was rejected. Had the IETF
officially deprecated searchlists prior to that, there would be no DHCPv6
search opt
Hi Warren,
I think the advice is good, but I wonder what the practical effect of writing
it down would be. I doubt it would change any of the entrenched habits in
enterprise systems and networking in our remaining lifetimes, for example, but
perhaps I'm just being overly grumpy and am ignorant
On Feb 10, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> There are many things which would be safer, less complex, and safer if
> search lists didn't exist -- would people be interested in discussing
> the idea, or is it just too out there?
I think there's not much to discuss. Whenever it comes up,
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Andrew Sullivan
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:50:18AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> That's pretty clear. This document is not forbidding the appearance of
>> such names in the DNS, nor the resolution of such names.
>>
>
> Instead, it is wanting to ha
