Robert Edmonds wrote:
> There is an analogous case with compression pointers themselves, which
> 1035 requires point to a "prior occurance [sic] of the same name". But
> BIND allowed pointers to point to later occurrences, and later
> implementations had to make the same allowance for compatibilit
Paul Vixie wrote:
> > If a DNS message is received on the wire, that has a compressed name in
> > some RR's RDATA which it should not have (going by its type), is it fair
> > to still accept it as a valid message and process it if the
> > implementation is able to do so? i.e., can Postel's law be f
Paul Vixie wrote:
> On Saturday, January 09, 2016 11:26:16 AM Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> >
> > If a DNS message is received on the wire, that has a compressed name in
> > some RR's RDATA which it should not have (going by its type), is it fair
> > to still accept it as a valid message and process i
On Saturday, January 09, 2016 11:26:16 AM Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>
> If a DNS message is received on the wire, that has a compressed name in
> some RR's RDATA which it should not have (going by its type), is it fair
> to still accept it as a valid message and process it if the
> implementation is
