Re: axfr-clarify's fraudulent claims of consensus

[Mark.Andrews@isc.org]

> Eliot Lear writes:
> > your implementation
> 
> And others, notably BIND 8. We're talking about MOST of the Internet's
> DNS servers here. (See http://cr.yp.to/surveys/dns1.html; I'm assuming
> that *.com is representative.) This is not a small issue.
> 
> > could cause interoperability problems by potentially allowing for
> > different contents of the same zone with the same serial number.
> 
> No. The _administrator_ can create problems by violating RFC 1034.
> (Andrews has admitted that his broken configurations violate RFC 1034.)

	The administrator cannot avoid breaking the rule.  All they
	can do is ensure that the time the rule is broken is
	minimised.
 
> If the administrator follows RFC 1034's consistency requirements, no
> problems occur. In fact, if the administrator violates RFC 1034 but
> still follows the easy semi-synchronization rule, no problems occur.

	You don't live in the real world if you think there won't be
	errors.  The job of computers is to make life easier not
	more complicated.  Having a protocol/implementation that
	doesn't deal with timing mistakes is a bad.
	
> Andrews is finally coming out of the closet and arguing that the RFC
> 1034 rule should be changed (because, with his software, the rule is
> hard for administrators to follow). But he can't reasonably argue
> against the semi-synchronization rule. People normally follow that rule
> anyway; there's no reason to break it; and it guarantees that problems
> don't occur.

	Dan if you want everyone to follow this rule then are you
	going to modify your software to enforce it.  You software
	doesn't currently comply with this rule.

	Mark
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews@isc.org