Re: TKEY compatibility problems

["D. J. Bernstein" <[e-mail]>]

Robert Elz writes:
> Yes, exactly, this is what we have been trying to tell you - just
> ignore unexpected records

I'm going to try one last time to explain this.

We're talking about a failure that can happen when you combine
TKEY-extended clients, TKEY-extended servers, and unextended caches.

We're also talking about a solution, in which THE TKEY CLIENTS ignore
unexpected records. This is a good solution, preserving compatibility
with the unextended protocol in a straightforward way.

This does not mean that THE UNEXTENDED CACHES ignore unexpected records.
That would be a thoroughly irresponsible solution, forcing the installed
base to upgrade for the sake of an optional protocol extension.

I cannot imagine how you interpreted ``TKEY clients ignore unexpected
records'' as ``unextended caches ignore unexpected records.''

The reason this discussion started is that the same failure can happen
when you combine TKEY-extended clients, TKEY-extended servers, and my
AXFR client. (My AXFR client, just like my cache and the BIND cache,
saves AU/AR records.) Guess what? If THE TKEY CLIENTS ignore unexpected
records, this problem disappears too!

> Glad you have finally conceded the point.

I find it difficult to believe that you're this stupid.

> Here the community as a whole is telling you

``The community as a whole''? Looks like a standards committee packed
with representatives of one vendor and users of that vendor's products.
The committee has a long history of labelling protocols as ``standards''
if, and only if, that vendor plans to implement them.

---Dan


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