That Bernstein is definitly on Bind's case... ;) ----- Original Message ----- From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> To: <ietf@ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org>; <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:50 PM Subject: Re: Poison in a zone > A moment ago we were being told how vitally important it was for AXFR > clients to preserve all records received under all circumstances: > > * ``An ACURATE [sic] copy of the zone is ESSENTIAL''; > * ``A modified zone is NOT a [sic] ACURATE [sic] copy. It's not > even a copy. It is a derived work''; > * ``IXFR depends upon the contents of the zone not being changed > unilaterally on the SECONDARY''; > * ``Bernstein still misunderstands zone coherency''; etc. > > This rhetoric is supposed to convince you that the majority of AXFR > clients (BIND 8 et al.) are doing something wrong by discarding parent > glue records when they have the authoritative child records. > > But now Gustafsson admits that the BIND 9 AXFR client doesn't follow > the ``zone coherency'' religion. It deliberately discards some kinds of > records! It isn't making a perfect copy of the zone! It's breaking IXFR! > Here's the quote: ``BIND 9 ... will discard [these] records whether they > are loaded from a master file or received as part of a zone transfer.'' > > To summarize: Not only is the BIND company (1) fraudulently labelling > its religion as a ``clarification'' and (2) fraudulently claiming > ``consensus'' on the religion over the objections of several people, > but it is also (3) deliberately disobeying its own commandments. > > ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, > Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago >