At 17:38 -0500 10/30/06, John C Klensin wrote:
It seems to me that a reference from the draft to the code
description or to Bind 9 more generally, with a note to the
effect that Bind 9 is believed to contain an implementation of
what is being described in the document, could head off a great
deal of confusion... including all of the confusion we have seen
in the last week or so.
The DNS WGs[1] have worked hard to stress that BIND is not DNS. BIND
is not the reference implementation of the DNS protocol. With that
in mind I think it is wrong to have a statement in the document
declaring that "the *definition* is compliant with BIND 9."
--On Tuesday, 31 October, 2006 08:42 +1100 Mark Andrews wrote:
The documents are essentially the same. In particular the
I'm glad to hear this. (I say that because I haven't had time to
read the documents and code in question.)
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
Secrets of Success #107: Why arrive at 7am for the good parking space?
Come in at 11am while the early birds drive out to lunch.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf