Paul Vixie wrote: >> ... > > i'll go further: i think that's a good clarification of and alteration > to the standards. i just don't think it's wise to expect a tcp-only > initiator, or a tcp-only responder, to function reliably. (ever.) so the > standard is nominal, and should guide other standards, but in this case > may give unusable guidance to implementers and operators.
let me put that differently and perhaps more understandably: <<That having been said, a stronger document set written today would not be able to put all of the DNS genies back into their bottles. Too many implementations have guessed differently when presented with a loose specification, and interoperability today is a moving, organic target. When I periodically itch to rewrite the specification from scratch, I know there are too many things that must be said that also cannot be said. It’s as though, in a discussion of the meaning of some bit pattern, a modern description of the protocol—written with full perspective on all that has been done in the DNS field—would have to say, “It could mean x but some implementations will think it means y so you must be cautious.”>> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1242499 -- P Vixie
