|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
To: nanog@merit.edu From: Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com> Date: 07 Oct 2001 10:01:12 -0700 In-Reply-To: ahu@ds9a.nl's message of "7 Oct 2001 03:36:01 -0700" Message-ID: <g3d73zbd0n.fsf@as.vix.com> Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu > The way to go about this is to see if breaking existing practice will break > current implementations and plausible future implementations. Allow me to apologize, once again, to Microsoft. In the NT 3.5.1 resource kit they shipped a DNS server which had to do its zone transfers one record per message since "existing practice" and "current implementations" meant BIND4 which knew no other way. Fortunately we didn't write a BCP describing BIND4's deviant behaviour, but rather, fixed it in BIND8 and beyond. > > If that's not the case, though, consider that a correct implementation of > > DNS would be within its rights to take note of the "same serial number but > > incoherent answers" condition and declare the zone unreachable. I'm not > > Would be pretty silly, and overstepping the robustness principle. Whether behaviour is robust enough to be called a BCP or not is fodder for a detailed analysis amongst people who *want* to study and debate such things. That mailing list, for DNS, is called namedroppers@ops.ietf.org. (Not NANOG.) > So by your logic, by making sure that the serial numbers never match, we > would 'unbreak' the situation? Seems like a step in the wrong direction. There is, simply is and we're not going to argue about it, an identity mapping between a zone's contents and a zone's serial number. If you don't like that then you should find a way to change it. Which direction is "wrong" is better discussed on namedroppers@ops.ietf.org than here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |