Re: in support of axfr-clarify

["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 posts by non-subscribers.  your subscription address is
  54830374684695-namedroppers@sublist.cr.yp.to, please post from it or, if you
  wish to regularly post from an address that is not subscribed to this
  mailing list, send a message to namedroppers-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to
  have the alternate address added to the list of addresses from which
  submissions are automatically accepted. ]

Mayer claimed ``You can't clarify without breaking something.'' Is there
anyone else here who doesn't understand how ridiculous that claim is?

BIND company consultant Danny Mayer writes:
> I am not and never have been an employee of either ISC or Nominum.

I apologize for the error. The fact remains that you're not disclosing
your financial interests in BIND.

> Since it's ambiguous, people have made different interpretations of
> the spec resulting in compatibility problems.

A typical implementation difference---whether or not it is caused by
different interpretations of the spec---does _not_ cause any failures.

For example, some AXFR servers insert glue records everywhere they're
used, while some AXFR servers insert each glue record exactly once.
AXFR clients can handle either approach. There are no failures here.

Explaining that servers can repeat records, and requiring clients to
handle repetitions, would be a clarification of the protocol. It would
not cause any failures. It would save time for future implementors, and
reduce the chance of careless implementors screwing up.

---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/>