As you note, they didn't conform to a BCP. There is no requirement (or implication even) that one should conform to a Best Common Practice. These serve to distribute helpful advice to the community and document practices that have worked for others, in situations that may be different. The AXFR issue is compliance with a required standard, and its definition. Much more serious concerns and issues are at stake. --Dean On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:48:09 EST, Dean Anderson said: > > > It seems quite odd that a "clarification" would put 77% of the existing > > servers out of compliance, and only brings into compliance a currently > > non-compliant implementation. I think it is unprecedented in the history > > of any standards organization, not just the IETF. Such a significant > > change is clearly a completely new version. Thus the widespread > > complaints about fraudulent labeling and discription of the proposal. > > Granted, it's only a BCP, but see RFC2505. A large percentage of > implementations were non-conforming to THAT too - but the situation has > improved dramatically since then. And note that there are more servers > for *THAT* protocol, from more vendors, than for DNS. > > > -- > Valdis Kletnieks > Computer Systems Senior Engineer > Virginia Tech > >
