Re: in support of axfr-clarify

[gson@nominum.com (Andreas Gustafsson)]

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

For the record, I also find Mayer's claim ridiculous.

The axfr-clarify specification does not "break" anything - it
maintains full compatibility with existing implementations.  While
some existing implementations don't _conform_ to the specification,
all known existing implementations do _interoperate_ with conforming
implementations.

> 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.

That's what the draft says:

   The transmission order of all other RRs in the zone is undefined.
   Each of them SHOULD be transmitted only once, and slaves MUST ignore
   any duplicate RRs received.

-- 
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/>