To:
Sam Weiler <weiler@tislabs.com>, DNS Operations <dnsop@cafax.se>
Cc:
dnssec <dnssec@cafax.se>, <dnssec@ISI.EDU>, namedroppers <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
From:
David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>
Date:
Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:36:40 +0900
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.GSO.4.33.0207152102220.3867-100000@raven>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006
Subject:
Re: [vet-DS]DS mini-workshop results
Not to be too pedantic, but in a recent message on namedroppers regarding RFC 1886 interoperability testing, the following was stated: >> 1) The data is most peculiar since nowhere that I could find are X, Y and Z >> identified. If they are somewhere I couldn't find it. Is there a reason >> to keep them obscured? > This is standard procedure in DNSEXT interop testing and reporting. Yet, Nominum gets identified in DS testing: On 7/16/02 10:08 AM, "Sam Weiler" <weiler@tislabs.com> wrote: > Quick summary: Nominum's and Olafur's authoritative servers worked and > interoperated, to the extent of our testing. There were bugs in > Nominum's recursive resolver, but basic cases generally worked as > expected. Might I suggest a bit of consistency here? I'm very much in favor of interop testing, but I'd prefer to avoid the hassle of defending our participation in informal interop events to my marketing/pr folks. Tnx, -drc