Re: repeating records

["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. ]

> > That blatantly violates RFC 2119, section 6.
> No it doesn't.
  [ ... ]
> merely restates RFC 2181

I can't imagine why you think that this is relevant to my comment. As
I've pointed out before, RFC 2181 blatantly violates RFC 2119 too.

As a broader matter: ``We screwed it up before'' does not justify
``Let's screw it up again.'' The solution to problems in RFC 2181 is to
fix RFC 2181, not to copy the problems into other documents.

Note that BIND 9 clearly fails to comply with RFC 2181 (by, for example,
using an A record cached from the additional section of an MX response
to answer a subsequent A query---this is normal, desirable behavior that
is prohibited by RFC 2181), so please don't spout any religious nonsense
about RFC 2181 being an edict from the heavens.

---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/>