IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Thu, 19 March 2015 10:58 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30EFB1A8974 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 03:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.364
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.364 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LzLeBk9y2hnh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 03:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF1441A883A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 03:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cb:750d:133c:2fd4:eaf7] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cb:750d:133c:2fd4:eaf7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A4B51814C; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:58:51 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <550AABE7.3050100@redbarn.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 03:58:47 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Windows/20140602)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
References: <20150318013805.GH4385@mx1.yitter.info> <55093E8C.3030300@redbarn.org> <550A8F58.2040009@nlnetlabs.nl> <20150319105640.GH6046@mx1.yitter.info>
In-Reply-To: <20150319105640.GH6046@mx1.yitter.info>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050906000907040905060804"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/vA23T3N1Vw64nJdY34Ej3HmWDkc>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] remarks on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-01
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:58:52 -0000


> Andrew Sullivan <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
> Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:56 AM
>
> No RFC can make changes that apply to implementations that do not
> conform with that RFC. This is true by definition. The draft does
> not somehow magically retroactively change the text in RFC 1035. It
> specifies new behaviour, and old implementations that don't conform to
> this new text will therefore obviously not exhibit the new behaviour.
> What's the problem?

the problem is that the definition of DNS doesn't change incompatibly.

if you want new behaviour, negotiate for it.

-- 
Paul Vixie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email