IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Tao and Re: BADVER/FORMERR

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Wed, 16 November 2011 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1EB1F0C62 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:13:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RX7l7m9TDH2z for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:13:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from trantor.virtualized.org (trantor.virtualized.org [199.48.134.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 312581F0C54 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:13:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.147] (unknown [173.245.57.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drc) by trantor.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E6F21705A; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:13:40 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <a06240800cae96debacee@[10.31.204.66]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:13:39 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6A35CF88-EE33-47D8-8C95-93F307EB6DF9@virtualized.org>
References: <20111115153055.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.4a8b265d31.wbe@email00.se cureserver.net> <20111116004945.D4CC6173AE05@drugs.dv.isc.org> <a06240800cae96debacee@[10.31.204.66]>
To: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: dnsext <dnsext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Tao and Re: BADVER/FORMERR
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:13:42 -0000

On Nov 16, 2011, at 5:53 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> I'd suggest going back to "what do we think the right response to an empty Question section should be" and then see if the installed code base is acceptable as is, and then document any decisions.

+1 (Ed and I agreeing on something??  What is this world coming to?)

I get a bit of heartburn when folks try to extrapolate (interpolate) RFCs, particularly the older ones, as they're really not suited  for that. I believe a much better approach in these cases is to try to figure out:

a) what is the desired behavior
b) what breaks in the deployed base if that behavior is implemented.

and then, as Ed says, document decisions made in an 'updates' RFC. 

Regards,
-drc

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status