Re: [DNSOP] When to Clarify - was Re: Ambiguous standards suck (was Re: draft-jabley-dnsop-ordered-answers)

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

On 11/6/15, 22:08, "Joe Abley" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>I'll note that the discussion that kicked all this off was an observed
>failure to interoperate in deployed code, and whether that code was
>following the specification or not was a matter of some debate depending
>on how 1035 was interpreted.
>
>I agree that changing the specification such that the majority of
>deployed code is suddenly non-compliant is a recipe for disaster. Let's
>not do that.


I'll offer up that I wrote this as a blanket comment, having in mind my
objections related to "refuse-any."  The reason I'm saying this is prevent
confusion on the "arguments."  I did respond to what Shane had said (in a
thread labeled "ordered answers", true.  In my defense I altered the
subject line but perhaps that was too subtle of a way to change context.

Meanwhile I am trying to figure out how to re-comment on refuse-any that
is non-repetitive (meaning I'd posted one already) but underscores what I
think is a needed critical change to that document.  Not saying y'all
should be waiting for more of my utterances, just to let you know what I
was thinking when I hit "send" to my previous message.

(I hope to get the other message out...it's half written in the out-box
but it's also not my top priority, despite the outward appearance that I'm
rewarded for every criticism I launch against work involving Olafur.)

(The latter is meant as a joke.)

(Really.)

Ed