Subject: Re: c-ares Digest, Vol 66, Issue 3

Re: c-ares Digest, Vol 66, Issue 3

From: Sebastian Ramacher <s.ramacher_at_gmx.at>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:46:32 +0200

On 06/04/2011 11:19 PM, Charlie Fenton wrote:
> And, as Uli points out, that is a simplistic approach which does not take into account all the nuances, such as the ones he references in RFC 3484. But I suppose one might argue that the current c-ares implementation is also a simplistic approach.

Even if c-ares's approach is simplistic I would like it to be consistent about
its fallback behavior. Thus I would welcome that patch or any other fix.

Kind regards,

-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

Received on 2011-06-06