At 17:38 -0500 10/30/06, John C Klensin wrote:
It seems to me that a reference from the draft to the code description or to Bind 9 more generally, with a note to the effect that Bind 9 is believed to contain an implementation of what is being described in the document, could head off a great deal of confusion... including all of the confusion we have seen in the last week or so.
The DNS WGs[1] have worked hard to stress that BIND is not DNS. BIND is not the reference implementation of the DNS protocol. With that in mind I think it is wrong to have a statement in the document declaring that "the *definition* is compliant with BIND 9."
--On Tuesday, 31 October, 2006 08:42 +1100 Mark Andrews wrote:The documents are essentially the same. In particular the
I'm glad to hear this. (I say that because I haven't had time to read the documents and code in question.)
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Secrets of Success #107: Why arrive at 7am for the good parking space? Come in at 11am while the early birds drive out to lunch. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
