>>>>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 04:24:17 +0900,
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As I said in my previous response, I'm not sure about that. But from
> a quick re-read of RFC1034, my impression is that discarding broken
> responses is more compliant. [...]
> Whether or not my guess is correct, however, I'm a bit reluctant to go
> into the details in our draft. The discussion on the "compliant
> caching server behavior" is an off-topic for our draft, and if the
> discussion itself is controversial describing it would cause
> unnecessary delay.
> So, how about just adding a note like this?
> RFC1034 requires that the caching server be paranoid in its parsing
> of responses. Whether or not this requirement makes either type of
> implementation less RFC-compliant, the point in this document is
> that those two types of implementation are actually deployed,
> causing different effects in terms of the issues described in this
> document.
Sorry for bothering you again, but I'm about to submit the new draft,
so could you let me know whether this is acceptable?
I basically prefer leaving the current text as is, since the
additional paragraph might cause another controversial and blocking
issue (on the interpretation of the "correct" behavior of a caching
server) even though it's irrelevant to the main subject of the
document. So, if we can go without the change, it's the best for me.
If you still think we need additional text, please let me know if the
above proposal is okay.
Thanks,
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
