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
