Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> To my mind, this is a way of saying that anyone who has to live with
> broken implementations by people who half-understand the huge volume
> of DNS-related RFCs is just sweet out of luck. Too bad for them. Is
> that really what we want to say?
Several months ago, I wrote:
: Isn't RFC1034 clear enough?
: - A name error indicating that the name does not exist. This
: may include CNAME RRs that indicate that the original query
: name was an alias for a name which does not exist.
to people, including you, who half-understand one of two very
fundamental DNS-related RFCs.
Some of the people are implementers.
Are you ready to withdraw your statement above?
Or?
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
