To:
Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
Date:
Mon, 28 Apr 2003 02:22:51 +0200
In-Reply-To:
<g3he8jwmju.fsf@sa.vix.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-01.txt
At 11:25 PM +0000 2003/04/27, Paul Vixie wrote:
> therefore i support drc's draft as written, since it's the least of all
> known evils. right now a number of non-BIND implementations answer for
> VERSION.BIND and sometimes also HOSTNAME.BIND in the CHAOS class, just
> for feature-level competition.
Note that NSD already supports VERSION.SERVER, presumably as a
result of the work on the draft (or maybe some earlier document or
discussion).
> i regret choosing .BIND as the pirate TLD
> in the CHAOS class for this; it should have been .NAMESERVER or something
> else, and there should have been at least a technote describing it, and
> i should have sought an experimental rfc for it.
The draft is pretty old, and appears to me to have some useful
information and suggestions. I'd at least like to see it go towards
an experimental or informational RFC, and perhaps beyond.
However, I must also agree with Rob that this seems to be more of
a protocol/policy issue and I'm not sure that it should be dealt with
in DNSOP. His suggestion of passing this to DNSEXT seems to be
appropriate.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.