Re: nominalism of standards (Re: TCP fallback on timeout)

You're off course right about the long tail of outdated devices. But you should have more trust into what can happen, if only there is sufficient incentive. Look at how long it took for HTTPS to get any meaningful traction. For the longest time, only e-commerce bothered with encryption. Then we

nominalism of standards (Re: TCP fallback on timeout)

Paul Vixie wrote: >> ... > > i'll go further: i think that's a good clarification of and alteration > to the standards. i just don't think it's wise to expect a tcp-only > initiator, or a tcp-only responder, to function reliably. (ever.) so the > standard is nominal, and should guide other

Re: TCP fallback on timeout

David Conrad wrote: > On Apr 27, 2017, 4:28 PM -0700, Paul Vixie via Unbound-users > , wrote: > >> so in effect, TCP is not required, and will never be required. the >> installed base and its long tail matter more than the wording of 1035. > >

Re: TCP fallback on timeout

On Apr 27, 2017, 4:28 PM -0700, Paul Vixie via Unbound-users , wrote: > so in effect, TCP is not required, and will never be required. the > installed base and its long tail matter more than the wording of 1035. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7766, proposed standard