In message <9452079d1a51524aa5749ad23e00392807e...@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.c om>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" writes: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mar > k Andrews > > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:28 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with > > > > > Maybe you believe that NOTIMP should be limited to unsupported OPCODES on > ly? > > > But that is definitely not what the spec says. > > > > Yet someone else that can't count beyond 1035. > > Weren't you the one that said "Actually it is STD 13. Get over it." earlier > in this thread?
Randy claimed that presentation formats were not standardised. They are. Randy and others claimed that the presentation formats were owned by BIND and they are not. I never claimed that STD 13 was the be all and end all w.r.t. DNS. STD 13 didn't follow the normal process required to make a STD. There are lots of corrections to STD 13 in the RFC series. > I looked at least at the titles of all the documents that update 1035, and no > ne of them appear to be related to the above. So where should we be looking? > > -MSK > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
