Re: in support of axfr-clarify

[Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>]

I would note that the "de facto rules" are defined by the "de
facto" implementations, which is not Bind 9.

While there could be reasons to change something, that isn't what
"clarify" means.  "Clarify" is where you document what was _done_ when the
specifications were vague.

It seems highly inappropriate to make seemingly gratiutous changes in a
particular commercial product, begin distributing those changes to users,
and then attempt to change the standards to reflect the changes, and
describing those changes as a "clarification".

This seems more like behind the scenes dirty tricks.

		--Dean

>         Interoperability is fine and dandy, but should not stand in the way
> of writing new specifications to do The Right Thing. This new specification
> makes AXFR error reporting and behavior more intuitive, and it puts data in
> the proper parts of the AXFR response (vis-a-vis Answer, Authority and
> Additional) in order to allow for future extensions. These two points --
> error/reporting behavior and allocation of records among sections -- seem to
> be your (and your minions') major objections to the new specification,
> because you've been bending the _de_facto_ rules in these regards (e.g.
> "section agnosticism" or whatever you call it). If your users have any
> "expense" due to the new specification, it is because you chose to _ad_lib_
> in the absence of a clear specification, instead of proceeding in a
> conservative and/or cautious fashion. C'est la vie...


--
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/>