Re: in support of axfr-clarify

[gson@nominum.com (Andreas Gustafsson)]

Dean Anderson writes:
> 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.

These are not protocol changes.  The one and only protocol change
specified by the draft is that of marking the end of a transfer by
sending the SOA rather than the apex node, since the former is what
every implementation does.  Everything else in the draft is specifying
things that were previously left unspecified.

> I think tampering with AXFR is risky, and not well understood.

I belive I have a pretty good understanding of AXFR after implementing
it in four different name servers for three different companies and
reapeatedly having to deal with the consequences of the
underspecification in RFC1034/1035.  I find that it is far more risky
to leave the protocol as vague as it is than to specify it in detail.

As for "tampering", you might as well say that this whole IETF thing
is a bad idea - after all, tampering with the Internet is risky and
not well understood.
--
Andreas Gustafsson, gson@nominum.com

--
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/>