unbound asks for A record, when txt requested
jinmei at wide.ad.jp
Thu Sep 12 16:29:36 UTC 2019
At Thu, 12 Sep 2019 23:35:30 +0900,
Daisuke HIGASHI via Unbound-users <unbound-users at nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
> > There is this draft in the works:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue
> I fully agree content of the document, but we can’t expect that all
> implementers strictly follow an I-D that its intended status is BCP.
FWIW, this behavior is essentially against the "expected behavior"
described in RFC4074, too. One can still say that it's just an
informational RFC without an RFC2119 keyword. But in that sense "we
can’t expect that all implementers strictly follow XXX", whether XXX
is an individual draft, a non-standards-track RFC, a standards-track
RFC without RFC2119 keywords, or a standards-track RFC with a bunch of
RFC2119 keywords. After all, there's no protocol police, and there's
always a broken implementation whatever the standard says.
It's still nice to have something to show to protocol abusers. It
doesn't always work, but often does.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unbound-users