Re: [DNSOP] remarks on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-01

["W.C.A. Wijngaards" <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi Paul,

On 18/03/15 09:59, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> Stub and recursive resolvers MUST be able to process responses
>> that arrive in a different order to that in which the requests
>> were sent, regardless of the transport protocol in use.
> 
> this does not work as a MUST, because existing implementations
> which were faithful to RFC 1035 might not be able to do this -- and
> you know this or you would not be trying to clarify the point at
> this late date. i think that if you want new behaviour you have to
> negotiate for it, not merely mandate it, since to mandate it would
> invalidate previously-valid implementations and break
> previously-working configurations.

+1.  Backwards compatibility means you cannot specify that existing
implementations have to change.  You can specify that 'upgraded'
implementations perform new actions, of course.

Best regards,
   Wouter

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=gCfF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----