Petr Špaček via Unbound-users wrote:
> Well, the spec is from 1987. Even the meaning of MUST/SHOULD etc. was
> not standardized yet back then ...
Even worse, this language appears to have been copied verbatim from RFC
883, which is even older (1983) :-)
--
Robert Edmonds
edmo...@debian.org
On 28.7.2017 00:15, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews via Unbound-users wrote:
> On 07/27/2017 01:28 PM, Robert Edmonds wrote:
>> Jacob Hoffman-Andrews via Unbound-users wrote:
>>> I'm trying to write some documentation for users of Let's Encrypt about
>>> CAA. I believe it's the case that standards-conformant
{this isn't really unbound specific}
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 12:52:01PM -0700, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews via
Unbound-users wrote:
> CAA. I believe it's the case that standards-conformant authoritative
> resolvers should return NOERROR for qtypes they don't recognize, rather
there are multiple funct
On 07/27/2017 01:28 PM, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> Jacob Hoffman-Andrews via Unbound-users wrote:
>> I'm trying to write some documentation for users of Let's Encrypt about
>> CAA. I believe it's the case that standards-conformant authoritative
>> resolvers should return NOERROR for qtypes they don't
Jacob Hoffman-Andrews via Unbound-users wrote:
> I'm trying to write some documentation for users of Let's Encrypt about
> CAA. I believe it's the case that standards-conformant authoritative
> resolvers should return NOERROR for qtypes they don't recognize, rather
> than NOTIMP. Is this correct? I
Hi all,
I'm trying to write some documentation for users of Let's Encrypt about
CAA. I believe it's the case that standards-conformant authoritative
resolvers should return NOERROR for qtypes they don't recognize, rather
than NOTIMP. Is this correct? If so, what is the relevant standard? I
haven't
