>>>>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:35:51 -0400,
>>>>> Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > 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.
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
