Petr Špaček <pspa...@isc.org> writes:

Thanks for the detail notes Petr, very helpful.

> From my point of view the RFC does not need to stick to the value
> currently implemented in resolvers.

Good point, and maybe the right phrasing I should have used should have
been "what value would implementations refuse to switch to"?

In part, I worry that code authors would object to having just changed
something and refused to change again.  It seems like reports are
overcoming that problem though  :-)

[I'm not sure we're at zero yet...]
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to