On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:54, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 13:26:22 +0000,
Ray Bellis wrote:
IMHO, if a clarification is needed, it's that a client that depends
on
the order of the RRsets in an answer MUST NOT do so.
Wouldn't it be a simpler clarification to say that a client MUST NOT
depend on the order of the RRsets in an answer?
Sure, the solution could be any number of things.
But what I heard clearly in the room (and what I saw on the mailing
list) is that there are multiple interpretations of the base spec, and
that there is deployed code that breaks as a result. This to me suggests
a need for clarification, regardless of what the clarification says.
Given that perspective, I remain confused as to why there was a strong
hum against providing clarification. It does seem possible that people
were humming against the specific proposal in the document, and not the
need for clarification in general.
As I mentioned before I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, here. I just
want to make sure I understand what question people thought they were
being asked.
Joe
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
