Peace,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, 5:17 AM Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2020, at 6:07 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> > To not adopt this means, the implementers could easily pick their own
>
> This seems unlikely. If they step on unallocated code points, few
> implementers will go along with that becaus
On Jul 7, 2020, at 4:37 AM, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
>
> Peace,
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, 5:17 AM Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2020, at 6:07 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>> > To not adopt this means, the implementers could easily pick their own
>>
>> This seems unlikely. If they step on unalloc
>> this is the draft where that issue would be decided, so it's
>> good we're talking about it. ...
>
> by the way, this is what kato and i, and later jabley, were
> trying to get at with
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize/
>
> but it was like moving mud with a toothpick
On Jul 7, 2020, at 12:57, Havard Eidnes wrote:
>>> this is the draft where that issue would be decided, so it's
>>> good we're talking about it. ...
>>
>> by the way, this is what kato and i, and later jabley, were
>> trying to get at with
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-r
>>> by the way, this is what kato and i, and later jabley, were
>>> trying to get at with
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize/
>>>
>>> but it was like moving mud with a toothpick, so after eleven
>>> years (2003 to 2014) we gave it up. there are probably some
>>> good
Paul Hoffman wrote:
RFCs 1035 and 2181 give mixed messages about incomplete RRsets.
They don't.
You should misunderstand 2181. Putting glue is not additional
section processing.
Masataka Ohta
___
Joe Abley wrote on 2020-07-07 10:01:
On Jul 7, 2020, at 12:57, Havard Eidnes wrote:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize/
but it was like moving mud with a toothpick, so after eleven
years (2003 to 2014) we gave it up. there are probably some
good ideas in there, eve
In article <45b4c5a5-7bca-3515-c5a5-3c470be15...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
you write:
>You should misunderstand 2181. Putting glue is not additional
>section processing.
Uh, what?
Searching for either NS or MX records causes "additional section
processing" in which address records associ
> On 8 Jul 2020, at 11:23, John Levine wrote:
>
> In article <45b4c5a5-7bca-3515-c5a5-3c470be15...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
> you write:
>> You should misunderstand 2181. Putting glue is not additional
>> section processing.
>
> Uh, what?
>
> Searching for either NS or MX records cause
