Re: RFC 2119 section 6

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

Brian Wellington writes:
> The point is that there are extensions already that are reasonable
> given the spirit of the original AXFR specification.

Nothing in the original specification requires that AXFR clients stop
reading packets at the end of the answer section. If you dispute this,
please quote the text that you believe imposes such a requirement.

> No one but you thinks it's necassary that all of these sites deploy the
> new code.

I have repeatedly asked why I should make this change to the code. What
exactly is the benefit?

The answer from your coworker Mark Andrews is that he might someday do
something that _fails_---causes ``damage,'' he says---if it encounters
the unchanged code. He says he wants to avoid ``breaking things.''

But changing the code isn't enough to prevent these failures. The
changed code would have to be _deployed_. That's the cost I'm talking
about. Deployment takes time and effort.

Is the BIND company backing away from demanding that my users suffer
this cost? If so, I ask again: What exactly is the benefit of my making
this change to the code?

> For the record, your comments about BIND 9's handling of unknown types
> in http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/newtypes.html are wrong.

The page was accurate when I wrote it. Are you saying that BIND was
subsequently fixed? Which versions?

---Dan


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