It appears that Joe Abley <[email protected]> said: >> However, I am in favor of adding a text such as the following: >> >> [...] > >I quite like your formulation, and I think I agree that it's better than what >we suggested initially. Thanks for >taking the time to write that up. I think based on other comments consensus >was already tilted towards making >more tightly-scoped advice around CNAME and DNAME and being more explicit >about not changing the packaging of >DNSSEC RRs, and your text does this quite elegantly. > >I am interested to hear whether anybody else thinks differently.
I think it's fine, but I also still think we should tell the stubs to grow up and deal with the records in whatever order they arrive. I realize that neither the caches nor the stubs will all be fixed any time soon, but a stub that you can crash by sending it the right answer in an unexpected order is a pretty bad piece of software. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
