In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1203061711470.25059@xxxxxxxxx>, "John R. Levine" wr ites: > >> They're not implementation specific, but they're also not required to > >> interoperate, as the wire format queries and responses are. > > > > They are a interchange standard as per RFC 1034. > > Yes, we all know that. But as I presume you also know, there are plenty > of DNS servers that store the zone info in other ways, ranging from djbdns > mutant syntax text files to various databases. > > Whatever the server uses, the provisioning system better match. BIND stores zones in other ways as well. You just have to be able accept them and produce them or else you don't have a comforming implementation. > > The standard format of master files allows them to be exchanged between > > hosts (via FTP, mail, or some other mechanism); this facility is useful > > when an organization wants a domain, but doesn't want to support a name > > server. The organization can maintain the master files locally using a > > text editor, transfer them to a foreign host which runs a name server, > > and then arrange with the system administrator of the name server to get > > the files loaded. > > That is one implementation. But it's far from the only one. > > My system has a web front end that lets my users edit groups of their > djbdns RRs, which it stores in a database. Once an hour, a perl script > goes through the database, regenerates the mutant text files, and stuffs > them into the name servers. It's not fabulous, but it gets the job done. Nobody says you can't have propriatry methods of data entry. However we do have standard presentation/entry formats defined and a good front end will accept those as well. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf