3 ms·
TCP support has been MUST implement for stub resolvers since 2016, so musl is several years late https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7766#page-6 https://www.rfc-e
by fanf2 3y ago
TCP support has been MUST implement for stub resolvers since 2016, so musl is several years late https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7766#page-6 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7766#page-6
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoOkay, then they haven't been standards-compliant for a very long time, which is a much more compelling point than arguing that they should be doing things beyond the standard.
- fanf2 3y agoThe reason the DNS TCP requirements RFCs were written was because of boneheads who don’t believe people who tell them it has been a non-optional part of the protocol since the 1980s
- geocar 3y agoYou are mistaken. That is only a proposal to change the standard. https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#allstds https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#allstds https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards
- m3047 3y ago"It's a catastrophe, but of little importance" -- Zizek "RFC" is Request For Comments. Some RFCs become standards. But there are no internet police, notwithstanding that the internet is a fascist state (run by corporations for the benefit of corporations). Understanding it as a fascist state is the rational way to view "enforcement" as well as the natterings over whether something is a standard and who is going to enforce it anyway.