Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 10 August 2016 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7055D12D58D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 18:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=zXBUtVDf; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=PKYD7Rxf
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 7BVTYreuSqgS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 18:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27A8C12D563 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 18:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 23276 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2016 01:41:50 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=5aeb.57aa865e.k1608; bh=yetfTPfKVxvz4mf/t0QYTVCb/kDpn6/do423IgdEO2Q=; b=zXBUtVDfeiQpfpr2tciE3ae6GWuXbeOGp/zF5vTlcUzNMP6sXXAckr7P8EpkaxYkXTEazA2bAOi99ieSsHGf850uQVMefYd8tyby0WTfF+hl3Go6JJiI0VD8S6VE4sNyLBY1YgNeIwqKPm1XVjl87oXm5r98znN1npUtDVr8Koc477PoDnXqea6YlM9Q5IipeCvmuFSltyBGMg3rR4KrAmXuv5KiQ/zZZlFrn7+z2aizUU0DCAdvPxLfpvOqPv20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=5aeb.57aa865e.k1608; bh=yetfTPfKVxvz4mf/t0QYTVCb/kDpn6/do423IgdEO2Q=; b=PKYD7Rxfd5p+Otdz0W3S+ZoCh36gWRUmP71uSQKBJR1LcBB23u2Udi0+zVO5Lw/mh4YUenS/WzZ/X5PWikxsPP0v2Lb7Jv4w/vkL1Ep1By4UFZcC6RsQ0wfWieWLPY5HE3Sp5VGQ2nSUlYUEqid54EdoRXPwYH8qZR2WWnjfJU0Kkz/IvtaYDXeTgX8G5HSHmK6zcp1q/EyZM9KCsCNycFxSQtk+I088cUeiYhIfNGNzfXTVW0i6lQIDDXKw1/71
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 10 Aug 2016 01:41:50 -0000
Date: 9 Aug 2016 21:41:49 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1608092140330.1678@ary.local>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <20160809235853.C8D6650487EC@rock.dv.isc.org>
References: <20160809232819.1291.qmail@ary.lan> <20160809235853.C8D6650487EC@rock.dv.isc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8COgtnqh6NQlutJ6MAjDy-a2h2Q>
Cc: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 01:41:52 -0000

> RFC2671/RFC6891 has
>
>   Z
>      Set to zero by senders and ignored by receivers, unless modified
>      in a subsequent specification.
>
> which resulted in 2% of deployed nameservers just copying reserved
> bits to the reply or 3% of nameservers not answering because a
> reserved bit is set.

I suppose, but how many of the people who wrote the broken code would have 
paid attention if it said YOU MUST SET THE BIT TO ZERO AND THEN IGNORE IT 
YOU MORON.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.