Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-00.txt

[Dave Lawrence <[e-mail]>]

tale:
>> It is significantly less operationally beneficial if it demands EDNS.

Paul, and echoed by Paul:
> i'm of the opposite view. we should not change behaviour without
> explicit signaling.

I've opened this as an issue to track toward WG consensus and suspect
that, unless strong consensus for one view or the other obviously
emerges on the list, that we'll be looking for a hum on it in London.

On the practical side, private implementations are of course going to
easily evade any MUST that could eventually make its way here and
still be seamlessly interoperable with clients.  The restriction's
effect would mainly be binding for implementations claiming the
strictest compliance.