Re: axfr-clarify's fraudulent claims of consensus

[gson@nominum.com (Andreas Gustafsson)]

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