--On fredag, februar 14, 2003 17:57:45 -0500 Dean Anderson <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com>
wrote:
As you note, they didn't conform to a BCP. There is no requirement (or
implication even) that one should conform to a Best Common Practice.
These serve to distribute helpful advice to the community and document
practices that have worked for others, in situations that may be
different.
The AXFR issue is compliance with a required standard, and its definition.
Much more serious concerns and issues are at stake.
Note: The IETF has never made *any* standard that the IETF required people
to conform to, unless they wanted to truthfully claim conformance to that
standard.
At one point in time it made sense to say that "to be an Internet device,
you have to conform to this set of standards"; currently, the ways in which
IETF standards depend on each other are complex enough that this doesn't
make much sense any more.
As a result, the distinction between "Elective", "Recommended" and
"Required" protocols has largely fallen into disuse; RFC 2400 was the last
version of the Official Protocol Standards document that even bothered to
list them - the current version is RFC 3300.
At the time of RFC 2400, the set of Required standards were:
-------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req 2400 1
-------- Assigned Numbers Req 1700 2
-------- Host Requirements - Communications Req 1122 3
-------- Host Requirements - Applications Req 1123 3
IP Internet Protocol Req 791 5
-------- IP Subnet Extension Req 950 5
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams Req 919 5
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Req 922 5
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Req 792 5
Here is the status of the DNS standards in that document:
DOMAIN Domain Name System Rec 1034,1035 13
DNS-MX Mail Routing and the Domain System Rec 974 14
axfr-clarify will have to enter the process as a Proposed Standard.
Both Proposed Standards and BCPs are encouraging people to do things a
certain way; if anything, I consider a BCP slightly more forceful.
Harald Alvestrand