[dns-operations] Role of RFCs was Re: Problems resolving

Jelte Jansen jelte at NLnetLabs.nl
Tue Mar 17 14:27:59 UTC 2009

Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 12:18 +0100 3/17/09, it doesn't matter who wrote:
> (Not that this applies to the .gov - DLV situation, but I felt I was on
> a roll.)

It shouldn't apply to anything that claims to conform to any RFC, since
such a claim implies that the software or process does abide by the
rules in said RFC. And in that sense the RFC would indeed be a
specification, be it if only to arrive to interoperability. Or lack of
it, which is clearly the case here. Finer details ceratinly fit in the
discussion about cases like this.

But we are getting off-topic really fast here ;)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/attachments/20090317/3c7fb604/attachment.sig>

More information about the dns-operations mailing list