Re: axfr-clarify on the move again

["D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>]

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  your subscription address is
  54830374684695-namedroppers@sublist.cr.yp.to, please post from it or
  fix subscription your subscription address! ]

Edward Lewis writes:
> RFC 2181, Section 5.4.1., defines a differentiation between two RR 
> sets matching the same {QNAME, QTYPE, QCLASS}.

Learn to read. RFC 2181 is completely consistent with what I said. It
does _not_ require anybody to keep track of two record sets under the
same class+name+type. On the contrary: RFC 2181 suggests a particular
strategy for deciding which record set to throw away. The core of that
strategy is choosing child data over parent data, which is exactly what
I tell AXFR users to do.

I don't mean to suggest that I approve of (elective proposed standard)
RFC 2181. On the contrary: several parts of it, including this strategy
over-specification, are implementation details whose standardization
blatantly violates RFC 2119, and some parts of it are really bad ideas.
But it certainly doesn't contradict what I'm saying about axfr-clarify.

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago



--
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/>