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

Edward Lewis <> Sat, 07 November 2015 00:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168651B3171 for <>; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 16:52:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.431
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i_NTE-d1bmBA for <>; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 16:52:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CF4A1A86F3 for <>; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 16:52:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 16:52:36 -0800
Received: from ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.021; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 16:52:36 -0800
From: Edward Lewis <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] When to Clarify - was Re: Ambiguous standards suck (was Re: draft-jabley-dnsop-ordered-answers)
Thread-Index: AQHRGJRE0Bil8nXypU6kvCS+I9NaKp6Q2P+A
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2015 00:52:36 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3529734753_7371715"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Joe Abley <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] When to Clarify - was Re: Ambiguous standards suck (was Re: draft-jabley-dnsop-ordered-answers)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2015 00:52:41 -0000

On 11/6/15, 22:08, "Joe Abley" <> 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'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.)