Yes, I understand that is a popular opinion. However, I would argue that
it is unhelpfully elitist.
The traditional understanding of ANY == ALL is well ingrained in
developers. It is not at all unreasonable for them to assume that if the
RR they wanted didn't come back in response to the ANY query that it
does not exist; and I do not see anything in this draft that would help
them understand that they need to requery (apologies if I missed it).
On this point alone the draft's claim of being backwards compatible is
wrong on its face, and as a result is nearly certain to cause far more
disruption than benefit.
Doug
On 03/17/2017 12:12 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
On 17 Mar 2017, at 06:54, Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> wrote:
If something gets an ANY response that does not include the thing it really
needs, how is it supposed to know that it needs to ask again?
If something is unable to unambiguously ask for the exact thing it really
needs, that's their problem. It's not a concern for this WG or the DNS protocol.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
