Re: AXFR "clarify"

[Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>]

	The first thing the WG has to decide is which document we
	are producing.

	* a document that allows for future growth and removes
	  implementation quirks.
	  [Some implementations will not be conformant with the new
	   specification.  Known quirks should be documented but
	   should not be accepted by default.]
	
			or 

	* a minimal change document which allows leaves all existing
	  implementations comformant.

	I believe most of the issues are because Dan percieved the
	that the later was what was requested but the former was
	what was coming out.

	I believe we should be producing a document that allows for
	future growth and removes implementation quirks.

		---------------------------------------

	One thing that is missing is case preservation of rdata
	when using compression.  This is a general requirement of
	DNS servers.

	When using label compression the master server MUST choose
	compression targets that preserve the case of the original
	domain name.

	In general, most servers are overly agressive when applying
	compression and do not met the spirit of RFC 103[45] when
	it comes to preserving case.  This applies in general not
	just AXFR.

	Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org

--
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/>