Le 31 mars 2010 à 17:43, Ted Lemon a écrit : > On Mar 31, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Rémi Després wrote: >> ==> This hack MUST therefore be flatly rejected. > > Unfortunately we don't have any control over what Yahoo or Google do to their > name servers. I agree with you completely on what we SHOULD do, but if Igor > decides to filter AAAAs on IPv4 queries, we can't stop him.
Sure, and that's fair. But it has to remains his problem, not an IETF specification problem. > We can refuse to endorse his solution, but really what's going on here is > that Igor (and Google before him) have come to us in good faith to tell us > about hacks they've done that they feel are necessary. We shouldn't > discourage them from doing that, Agreed. My strong reaction is only against this particular hack because: - it is based on the idea that OSes cannot be patched where they are bugged - it destroys legitimate connectivity for OSes that aren't bugged. > even if we do discourage them from doing the hacks. > > So to my mind, the question is whether or not we want to (and can!) have some > say in what these hacks look like, We do want it. (That's what I did in the technical explanation.) > not whether or not we should forbid them. "Flatly rejecting" the hack, as I proposed, doesn't mean "forbidding" it. (Vendor makes its own choices anyway.) It just means, in my understanding, a clear refusal to endorse it. Regards, RD _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
