D. J. Bernstein writes:
This ``clarification'' document prohibits several perfectly legitimate,
very widely deployed, AXFR implementation techniques. See my web page
http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/axfr-clarify.html for details. In particular,
this document violates RFC 2119, section 6, in five separate ways.
Your objections are certainly well known by now, and I have repeatedly
responded to them.
At least seven people have gone on record as objecting to axfr-clarify:
Dean Anderson,
Len Budney,
Felix von Leitner,
Can you please show us that record? I cannot find any messages from
Felix von Leitner in my namedroppers archive.
Kenji Rikitake,
Kenji Rikitake withdrew his objection.
Aaron Swartz,
Aaron Swartz' objections appear to be based on his belief that BIND 8
and UltraDNS violate section 3 of the draft. I have not seen any
further objections from him after I pointed out that they don't.
Sam Trenholme (MaraDNS implementor), and
me (djbdns implementor).
Furthermore, the Yokohama minutes report a WG decision that axfr-clarify
is ``too bind specific''---too specific to BIND 9, to be precise.
My impression (based entirely on a private e-mail discussion with
Randy Bush, since I was not present at the Yokohama meeting) is that
this was not a decision that axfr-clarify is too BIND specific in the
view of the WG, but rather a decision to give the draft more time for
discussion due to *your* claim that it is too BIND specific.
--
Andreas Gustafsson, gson(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com