D. J. Bernstein writes: > This ``clarification'' document prohibits several perfectly legitimate, > very widely deployed, AXFR implementation techniques. See my web page > http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/axfr-clarify.html for details. In particular, > this document violates RFC 2119, section 6, in five separate ways. Your objections are certainly well known by now, and I have repeatedly responded to them. > At least seven people have gone on record as objecting to axfr-clarify: > > Dean Anderson, > Len Budney, > Felix von Leitner, Can you please show us that record? I cannot find any messages from Felix von Leitner in my namedroppers archive. > Kenji Rikitake, Kenji Rikitake withdrew his objection. > Aaron Swartz, Aaron Swartz' objections appear to be based on his belief that BIND 8 and UltraDNS violate section 3 of the draft. I have not seen any further objections from him after I pointed out that they don't. > Sam Trenholme (MaraDNS implementor), and > me (djbdns implementor). > Furthermore, the Yokohama minutes report a WG decision that axfr-clarify > is ``too bind specific''---too specific to BIND 9, to be precise. My impression (based entirely on a private e-mail discussion with Randy Bush, since I was not present at the Yokohama meeting) is that this was not a decision that axfr-clarify is too BIND specific in the view of the WG, but rather a decision to give the draft more time for discussion due to *your* claim that it is too BIND specific. -- Andreas Gustafsson, gson@nominum.com