> Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think that "all" of the drama could have been avoided in any
> > > case, there is too much emotion surrounding this issue.
> >
> > I'll concur with Doug on this. I've been discussing doing
> > just this for the last 10+ years.
>
> Why don't you update 2870 then to make it so?
Why don't you? You seem to be the one worried about it :-)
I want to get draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones through
first before dealing with the issue of how to get every
iterative resolver serving the root. You will note that
dealing with traffic at the root is left out of
draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones.
> If all the roots provided it and were required to, there's no
> problem. But current best practice as defined by 2870 are
> for roots to only answer AXFRs from other roots.
>
> How can you advocate an OS pushing a configuration that isn't
> guaranteed to be functional? I understand the odds of it
> breaking, and I understand the benefits. That's not the issue.
There is a difference between saying we should do this and
just doing it. Part of process is to get consenus that
this is reasonable or at least won't hurt and working what
needs to be changed to make it happen.
> This is a configuration that should be guaranteed to work for 2
> years after every OS release that includes it.
>
> --
> Skip
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
