Re: rsync vs. axfr-clarify (was: in support of axfr-clarify)

["D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>]

Derek Atkins writes:
> Could you answer me how AXFR can be considered a "new query type" or
> even a "protcol extension"?

You said ``AXFR and IXFR.'' If you're going to start drawing some
religious line between protocol options defined many years ago and
protocol options defined more recently, you'll have to put IXFR on the
same side of the line as rsync.

> I am certainly open to the concept of using alternate methods
> (outside the DNS protocol) to transmit DNS information, but it is
> quite frankly out of scope for the DNS protocol discussion list.

What exactly do you mean by ``the DNS protocol''? 

Please try to avoid knee-jerk religious answers. For example, if you
define ``the DNS protocol'' as ``whatever runs on port 53,'' then you're
making the absurd claim that it's ``out of scope'' to discuss Larson's
proposal to put DNSSEC on another port.

---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/>