Re: in support of axfr-clarify

[Danny Mayer <mayer@gis.net>]

At 03:29 PM 12/2/02, Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
> > 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.
To clarify myself, I phrased this badly. I should have said that a server
that previously conformed to RFC's based on their being multiple
possible interpretations of those RFC's may be non-compliant with
this draft and would need to be changed in order to be compliant.
Breaking was a badly chosen word.

The other part of this question is this: If you have two servers, one a
master and the other the slave for a specific zone and the slave uses
AXFR to transfer the zone from the master, can the slave ever give
different answers to queries than what the master would respond as
a result of the received zone? If the answer is yes, something is wrong
since you should get the same answer no matter which authorative
server you ask. That's what I meant by broken. Does that make more
sense?

Danny


--
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/>