> a) Agrees with my characterization of Paul's proposal as a change (or > expansion, if you prefer) of the goals for this work item;
Learning more about the resolvers out there would be *very* helpful, but that isn't achieved by them providing an ID, they'd have to tell their version (or feature list or ...). That, however could lead to all those "intelligent" features of webservers, giving blinking domain names to resolver X and those with smell and taste to resolver Y. That's only very remotely related to "hostname.bind". Also, I do not yet understand why the resolver should "pay" for the server's ID by presenting its own first, especially since the ID need not be meaningful and may even change over time. We aimed at debugging, not feature negotiation. > b) Agrees with Paul on this change in goals. I'd like to have an agreed upon debugging aid *soon*. > Silence will be interpreted as "yes" on (a) and "no" on (b). You may take these as my words of silence. -Peter . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
