Benjamin Kaduk writes:
> Isn't there still some latent risk of such fielded implementations
> that would be incompatible with this change if it ever did show up
> on the wire?
There's always some risk with any change, right? I'm not trying to be
flatly dismissive of the concern. I do, however,
Ben,
It's certainly a judgment call, but it really does seem that uint_32t has been
around so long now that surviving implementations that misuse int for this
surely have many other problems too. We'd be talking about resolver code that
hasn't been refurbished since 1997 *and* a DNS record
Hi Brian,
I agree that this updated text provides more clarity about why the
change is being made, but I am not sure that it fully addresses all of
the concerns you raised, and would appreciate your thoughts.
Specifically, you had raised the possibility of existing, fielded,
implementations that
Hi Dave,
Thanks. I think that covers it. I still suspect that the original reason
was concern about int versus uint confusion, but the new text is fine.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 25-Oct-19 08:35, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> internet-dra...@ietf.org writes:
>> A diff from the previous version is
internet-dra...@ietf.org writes:
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09
This revision addressed the one remaining outstanding issue that Brian
Carpenter raised in the Gen-ART Last Call Review. The following text
was
