Subject: Re: Bind 9 AXFR Modification vs AXFR Clarification

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 06:58:42 -0800

I remember when people thought OSI protocols took too long to 
standardize... :-)

Rgds,
-drc

On Friday, February 21, 2003, at 12:25  AM, Erik Nordmark wrote:

>> Apparently, you aren't even aware that your changes will make all 
>> non-bind
>> 9 servers non-compliant.  Had you been aware of that, it seems you 
>> would
>> have brought this proposal forward something like 3 years ago, before
>> releasing Bind 9, and before publishing a book on the subject.
>
> A data point.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/00jul/I-D/dnsext-axfr-clarify-00.txt
> INTERNET-DRAFT                                      Andreas Gustafsson
> draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-00.txt                     Nominum Inc.
>                                                             March 2000
> Seems to be 3 years ago.
>
>   Erik
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message was passed through [email-masked], 
> which is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed. 
> Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.
>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:20:57 -0500 (EST)

Interesting. So, they knew that standardization was necessary, the
proposed a standard, the standard wasn't accepted, so they distributed
code to users anyway, and wrote a book anyway.

I find that even more worthy of criticism.

Did they think they would force this through later? Never mind, it doesn't
matter what they thought.

As this "clarify" seems to have been dead for years, we should get on with
the business of clarifying AXFR as it was commonly interpreted. And lets
get on with the MAXFR proposal.

		--Dean

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Erik Nordmark wrote:

> > Apparently, you aren't even aware that your changes will make all non-bind
> > 9 servers non-compliant.  Had you been aware of that, it seems you would