Robert Elz writes:
It prohibits some odd-ball techniques
You are talking about a draft disobeyed by MOST DNS SERVERS ON THE NET.
Please drop the loaded terminology.
"Violating" 2119 is a nonsense concept.
RFC 2119, section 6: ``Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must
be used with care and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used
where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior
which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)
For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability.''
Contrary to your claims, these are not mere ``recommendations.'' This
draft claims to be following RFC 2119, but blatantly violates RFC 2119,
by trying to impose BIND 9's private decisions on everyone else.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago