> On Mar 18, 2015, at 11:55 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> we need a document that says "If you don't want to answer ANY, here's how to
> do it interoperably." we don't need to say "you should not answer ANY", but
> we do need to say "if you want to query for ANY, here's what might happen."
> that
Dear colleagues,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:16:37PM +, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> I realized after uploading that I hadn't sent this along for discussion.
> > Name: draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld
I've read this draft. I have a few comments.
To begin with, in general I think t
On 3/17/15 8:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:59:25PM -0400, Richard Barnes wrote:
If an application does not implement tor, and is not tor aware, it
_will_ do a DNS lookup. You can't really go ask the world to stop
doing that. You need to deal with tha
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * W. C. A. Wijngaards:
>
>> > +1. Backwards compatibility means you cannot specify that existing
>> > implementations have to change.
>
> Does it matter if they do not exist or are not considered practically
> relevant?
not usually. if there's a standard for it, our burd
* W. C. A. Wijngaards:
> +1. Backwards compatibility means you cannot specify that existing
> implementations have to change.
Does it matter if they do not exist or are not considered practically
relevant?
As a counterexample, RFC 6891 requires FORMERR responses without OPT
RRs from implementat
