Re: in support of axfr-clarify

[Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>]

It would make the standards transaction more intellectually honest.

But I still think the changes are dubious.  I assert that the AXFR
protocol and semantics should not need to be changed in order to do IXFR.
Changes to the AXFR semantics seems to imply changes to RFC1035, and
affects backward compatibility.  I think tampering with AXFR is risky, and
not well understood.

However, I haven't looked into the Bind 9 IXFR modifications enough to
know exactly why AXFR changes are really necessary, or if indeed they are
really necessary or just a convenient hack to make IXFR work in Bind.

I think I would rather change IXFR to make it work without changes to
AXFR.

So I still wouldn't be for it.

		--Dean

On 27 Nov 2002, Greg Hudson wrote:

> On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 16:32, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > 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".
>
> Would it really make any of you happier if the title were changed from
> "clarifications" to "revisions" and the introductory text modified
> accordingly?  (If so, I'm all for it.)
>
>




--
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/>