Re: axfr-clarify on the move again

[Kenji Rikitake <kenji@k2r.org>]

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]

Dear Andreas: 

I do not want to involve in the definition game you have proposed, since
I do not want to waste time of the readers.  I'll keep it concise just
for the fairness and showing my respect for your offering to defend your
argument, and to give the answers you requested to me:

Yes, I am against axfr-clarify.  I 100% support Daniel J. Bernstein's
argument on this issue.  Please reread
http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/axfr-clarify.html
for the details.  

Please allow me repeat this:

RFC1034 Section 2.2. on DNS design goals:

-- quote --

   - The primary goal is a consistent name space which will be used
     for referring to resources.  In order to avoid the problems
     caused by ad hoc encodings, names should not be required to
     contain network identifiers, addresses, routes, or similar
     information as part of the name.

-- unquote --

My argument is that: allowing an RR to have two or more inconsistent
(not equal to each other) contents, by allowing different contents of
RRs in two or multiple zones, is inconsistent with this design goal, and
is against DNS semantics.  

I would refrain from engaging in future arguments on this issue.

I appreciate your response, Andreas.

// Kenji Rikitake



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