Re: RFC 2119 section 6

[Brian Wellington <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, D. J. Bernstein wrote:

> Kevin Darcy writes:
> > TSIG and EDNS0 are already with us, and as far as I know it is legal
> > for either or both to be transmitted in an AXFR response
>
> Only by bilateral agreement.

A TKEY can spontaneously be added to a response.  See RFC 2930, section 5.
I don't think this is a good idea, but it is a spec.  It says

	This SHOULD only be done if the server
	knows the querier understands TKEY and has this option implemented

but that doesn't prevent a server from doing it in other cases.  It would
be completely legal for a server to implement this, and it would cause
your AXFR client to import a TKEY record into the zone.

> Terrified of new ports? Fine. Use a new EXFR query type. This is not
> rocket science.

Which, for every DNS implementation except yours, would be identical to
AXFR.

> > you have IMO fallen far short of demonstrating that
> > "section-agnosticism" has any practical value
>
> I have thousands of sites whose adminitsrators don't want to be forced
> to upgrade their working DNS software. If you don't think compatibility
> has ``practical value,'' you're an idiot.

No one's forcing users to do anything.  This is a fairly minor point, and
even if your client is non-compliant, it has virtually no interoperability
issues.  I wouldn't go out of my way to update sites that I administered
just because of this.

Brian



to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.