Rick Troth wrote, in part: >But I have been bitten by IBM implementations where Big Blue were such >sticklers for the rules that WIDELY accepted exceptions just did not >fly.
Indeed. I still have mild trauma from 1996 or so, when we were the only site on the planet using VM as a primary DNS and (after a month of back-and-forth) found out that IBM's interpretation of TTL=0 to mean "do not cache at all" differed from the rest of the universe, who took it to mean...um...something longer. The details are hidden behind the pain. Anyway, they were interpreting the RFC strictly. More recently, we've found that their interpretation of RFC5280 Basic Constraints is stricter than the rest of the world, although arguably far saner. However, it does cause failures for connections that work with "everything else". Of course there's no winning on this stuff! https://xkcd.com/927/ (obligatory) (Hmm, "stickler" and "strict" don't appear to be etymologically related. I wondered.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
