Re: axfr-clarify breaking RFC 1034

["D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>]

Mark.Andrews@isc.org writes:
> Semi-synchronized changes have always been part of the DNS.

If there's an honest proposal to modify the DNS specifications to allow
semi-synchronized changes (once again: parent zone being changed after
all the child servers have changed), perhaps the discussion will reveal
that those changes work with BIND 4, BIND 8, djbdns, etc.; that those
changes are useful; and that nobody objects to this modification.

On the other hand, if there's an honest proposal to modify the DNS
specifications to allow _unsychronized_ changes (such as your asinine
configuration examples), the discussion will reveal that those changes
do _not_ work with the majority of DNS servers on the Internet, that
those changes are _not_ useful, and that the modification is a bad idea.

What we have here is much worse: a thoroughly dishonest attempt to slip
the latter modification past us as part of an ``AXFR clarification.''
Anyone with a shred of integrity should be opposing this fraud.

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago