I don't really know you, if you're on "I'm right" crusade without any support in protocol spec, enjoy.
-
-
It's clear from text of RFC1123 that truncated answers are meant to be usable except some special cases.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @vavrusam and
MX is cited there as a special case where you can't use a truncated result.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @vavrusam and
And the "SHOULD try...TCP" is conditional on "if the requester supports TCP".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
come on, 1123 is RFC from 1989 that's been amended several times, most notably 2181.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm not going by spec but by what behavior is fundamentally necessary for decent UX.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @vavrusam and
Multiple round trips to get 100 extra A's you don't want or need is not decent UX.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
ok, now we've established that spec doesn't support it and servers don't do it, you argument on UX.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vavrusam @RichFelker and
which is fair. It's be desirable in some cases. It's not in some other - when you need to validate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Stub resolvers do not validate. They trust a validating resolver on localhost.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
But again, if the recursive server gives you partial answer w/TC bit, you have choice of what to do.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.