Not to be too pedantic, but in a recent message on namedroppers regarding RFC 1886 interoperability testing, the following was stated:
>> 1) The data is most peculiar since nowhere that I could find are X, Y and Z >> identified. If they are somewhere I couldn't find it. Is there a reason >> to keep them obscured? > This is standard procedure in DNSEXT interop testing and reporting. Yet, Nominum gets identified in DS testing: On 7/16/02 10:08 AM, "Sam Weiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quick summary: Nominum's and Olafur's authoritative servers worked and > interoperated, to the extent of our testing. There were bugs in > Nominum's recursive resolver, but basic cases generally worked as > expected. Might I suggest a bit of consistency here? I'm very much in favor of interop testing, but I'd prefer to avoid the hassle of defending our participation in informal interop events to my marketing/pr folks. Tnx, -drc
