Re: repeating records

[Kevin Darcy <kcd@daimlerchrysler.com>]

"D. J. Bernstein" wrote:

> [ 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.

It's not an edict from the heavens, but it is a prevailing DNS standard. Get over
it. The time for gauging "rough concensus" on the "don't repeat records" part of
the DNS protocol specification is long past, and the fact that axfr-clarify
restates the rule doesn't give you another chance to turn back the hand of
progress.


- Kevin




--
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/>