On 16/04/2021 09:18, Ray Bellis wrote: > Yes, that was pretty much it. > > Many DNS proxies / ALGs don't inspect the packet contents at all, so a > stronger generic requirement was not feasible. FWIW, I have formally requested that the authors withdraw the statement in the paper's conclusion that infers that RFC 5625 is "too complex, ambiguous or outdated". They have utterly failed to comprehend that the scope and context of RFC 5625 was DNS Proxy / ALGs in home gateways and that it is not appropriate to criticize it for not making normative requirements of *every* DNS stack. They simply were not in scope. Ray _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
- [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wreck problem draft-das... Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wreck problem ... Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wreck prob... Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wreck ... Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wreck ... Lanlan Pan
- Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wr... Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wreck problem ... Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wreck prob... John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wreck ... Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wr... Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Na... Christian Huitema
- Re: [DNSOP] A draft about th... Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] A draft abou... Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] A draft abou... Paul Vixie