From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <9D2057F2-1DC9-4D85-A1EB-C26630634C33@gmail.com>
From: Patrick Kelly <kameo76890@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <dd57a1d33587e2be68c04f23ccdccdbc@coraid.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPod Mail 7D11)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:29:18 -0500
References: <4B57048D.6040002@maht0x0r.net>
	<58dec826cbba066ea2cf1362ffa28e96@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<429BB192-1F75-44F3-AC67-730F152E4C29@gmail.com>
	<9c614339d11833003968916e4dff66bb@coraid.com>
	<41CF4DC9-7F76-4902-8F8A-28A477A798DE@gmail.com>
	<dd57a1d33587e2be68c04f23ccdccdbc@coraid.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Are we ready for DNSSEC ?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c196a330-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


>
>> That makes their use of the word extension wrong, but in that case
>> starting over would seem (and probably is) best.
>
> i think it fits the definition of extension.  the protocol is
> compatable with dnssec-unaware implementations.
Since part of the base was modified, but it's still backwards
compatable extension isn't the right term, I can not think of the
proper word; I am being anal.

At any rate, was there a date this would be implimented? I'm looking
forewards to seeing how much this actually fixes.
> - erik
>