On Monday, 13 May 2019 08:14:34 UTC Miek Gieben wrote:
> I agree with Paul here. Also sidesteps questions like why HINFO is not in
> this list.
i disagree with paul here. see below.
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2019, 09:08 Paul Hoffman, wrote:
> > On May 13, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
> > > On
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:52:59AM +0200, Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
> > A far easier approach is for any developer to feel free to treat
> > these RRtypes as unknown RRtypes.
>
> That will work for all record types except those defined in RFC 1035
> since name compression in
Paul,
On 13/05/2019 10.08, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On May 13, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 07:47:35AM +, Paul Hoffman wrote:
A far easier approach is for any developer to feel free to treat these
RRtypes as unknown RRtypes.
I'm not sure I understand the
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On May 13, 2019, at 11:06 AM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > I still would like to continue with this and I still think it’s a
> > no brainer
>
> It is far from a no-brainer. The implementation of this document will
> leave RFC-compliant systems in an unknown state.
>
> A far
> On 13 May 2019, at 09:22, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> I would prefer documented agreement about what is obsolete and what is not.
+1
Though a definition of what is meant by obsolete might be needed too: "no
longer seen in the wild but could still be alive in closed environments",
"deader than
On 13 May 2019, at 15:08, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On May 13, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 07:47:35AM +, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> A far easier approach is for any developer to feel free to treat these
>>> RRtypes as unknown RRtypes.
>>
>> I'm not sure I
I agree with Paul here. Also sidesteps questions like why HINFO is not in
this list.
On Mon, 13 May 2019, 09:08 Paul Hoffman, wrote:
> On May 13, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 07:47:35AM +, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >> A far easier approach is for any
On May 13, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 07:47:35AM +, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> A far easier approach is for any developer to feel free to treat these
>> RRtypes as unknown RRtypes.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making here?
> What you
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 07:47:35AM +, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> A far easier approach is for any developer to feel free to treat these
> RRtypes as unknown RRtypes.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making here?
What you said sounds similar to what the document proposes, so
perhaps
On May 13, 2019, at 11:06 AM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> I still would like to continue with this and I still think it’s a no brainer
It is far from a no-brainer. The implementation of this document will leave
RFC-compliant systems in an unknown state.
A far easier approach is for any developer to
10 matches
Mail list logo
