> > 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. Leaving the text unchanged is fine. Thomas . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
