IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-jabley-dnsop-ordered-answers

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 06 November 2015 04:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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 182A61A8838 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:00:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 Nro2TfBTlm3Q for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:00:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [50.116.54.116]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03901A884C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:00:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BADC10690 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 04:00:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3E3z4KJNaFD4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 04:00:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (dhcp-28-138.meeting.ietf94.jp [133.93.28.138]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49CCE10647 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 04:00:10 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 23:00:07 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20151106040007.GE5060@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <1E5B644E-EA0D-4287-8AB5-1907EE06BE1C@hopcount.ca> <563B58FE.50905@bellis.me.uk> <m2mvusfnlq.wl-Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie> <0C7A7D2B-02F8-46EE-A85D-27FB6BB483ED@hopcount.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0C7A7D2B-02F8-46EE-A85D-27FB6BB483ED@hopcount.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/vkc3UC_h4TYtExwkUFRZDW-Yfus>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-jabley-dnsop-ordered-answers
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 04:00:18 -0000

On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 12:42:45PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
> But what I heard clearly in the room (and what I saw on the mailing list) is
> that there are multiple interpretations of the base spec, and that there is
> deployed code that breaks as a result. This to me suggests a need for
> clarification, regardless of what the clarification says.

For whatever it's worth, I had the same reaction.  Probably I did a
bad job presenting the point.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status