At 12:45 2002-11-17, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
Gudmundsson writes: > DNSEXT has completed it's review of this document and requests that > it be advanced to Proposed standard. Excuse me? When did that happen? The document is highly controversial. The conclusion of the July meeting was ``Not ready to go: axfr-clarify, too bind specific.'' There were no subsequent public discussions.
Highly controversial is relative term, few individuals do not make a document "controversial". As for the no public discussion that is answered in following email to namedroppers: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2002/msg02116.html Where Randy explains that he had technical doubts if it was unnecessarily overly-definitive document, after off-line technical discussions with me and others he removed his hold. The minutes from Yokohama could be better on what else he said. We both knew your position when we forwarded the document to the area director.
In fact, it's even worse than that: this so-called ``clarification'' is specific to _BIND 9_. It imposes requirements incompatible with BIND 8, djbdns, and probably a bunch more widely deployed servers. http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/axfr-clarify.html gives detailed explanations of my ten objections to this document. To summarize: * ``Timeline'': This document obviously does not have consensus. This is the fourth time that Gudmundsson has tried to ram this document through the process by misrepresenting the WG discussions.
With only you objecting to the document and number of members of the working supporting it, how can we as WG chairs draw other conclusion that there is a rough consensus? Anyway the document is being forwarded to the IESG for review and they will issue a IETF last call where you and others that object to the document can restate your case. The following message refutes all your points better than I can http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2002/msg01885.html Your understanding of 1034 disagrees with some other implementors. Your understanding of 1034 does make it impossible to implement IXFR. My message to namedroppers was to the point WG agrees this document is a good thing, and that there are some dissenters from the consensus of the WG. Dan, no-one has veto power in the work of the IETF your childish behavior and outbursts do not harm anyone but yourself and the valid technical points you attempt to make. Olafur