company abuse
the standards process to punish _my_ users is completely unacceptable.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
IETF documents---
even the occasional high-quality ones, the ones that are important for
interoperability---simply has to point to the progress of axfr-clarify
as an IETF ``standard.'' A legitimate standards organization would never
have allowed axfr-clarify to get anywhere.
---D. J. Bernstein
errors have been much more clearly exposed than they were
at the beginning. For example, the BIND company has admitted that the
``zone coherency'' rule is violated by BIND 9.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois
the zone
from two different masters, serial-number coherency is irrelevant.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
over the objections of several people,
but it is also (3) deliberately disobeying its own commandments.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
of the largest .com hosting companies on the Internet?
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
no basis for demanding that the rest
of us support them too.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
to do this
in the case of IXFR.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
that it should
be changed to allow configurations that work with all existing software?
You know, Mark, this discussion would have been a lot easier if your
company had started by making an honest proposal to change the protocol,
instead of trying to sneak changes past us as ``clarifications.''
---D. J
? The IETF shouldn't be sticking its nose into private
implementation decisions that don't cause interoperability problems.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
replication protocols, etc. You're
making a fool of yourself when you call it ``impossible.''
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
to slip it past us as part
of an ``AXFR clarification.''
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
). 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.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University
that religion. If you start adding qualifiers such as
``except in MX queries'' then your religion starts to sound really dumb.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
it. But don't try to sneak it past us as part of an
``AXFR clarification.''
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
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
.'' This is a sham.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
propose
that, and we'll discuss the costs and benefits. Instead they're trying
to slip the change past us as a ``clarification.'' You know they're
lying; why are you condoning dishonest behavior?
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science
have had to point out the blazingly
obvious fact that constraining _server_ behavior is not the same as
constraining _client_ behavior.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
everything through
the language of BIND's configuration files, you're going to keep making
false claims about the behavior of other DNS software. I strongly
recommend that you read the specifications of the standard DNS protocol,
specifically RFC 1034 and RFC 1035, before you comment further.
---D. J
are pushing BIND 9. The document's proponents admit that
their ``clarification'' imposes rules disobeyed by BIND 8. My survey
http://cr.yp.to/surveys/dns1.html two months ago showed that 45% of all
.com names were served by BIND 8, while only 23% were served by BIND 9.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate
/djbdns/axfr-notes.html
Comments are welcome from anyone who wants to help future implementors.
Comments are not welcome from people who are demanding (for commercial
reasons or for religious reasons) that most of the DNS servers on the
Internet be changed to imitate BIND 9.
---D. J. Bernstein
is not required for interoperability.''
Contrary to your claims, these are not mere ``recommendations.'' This
draft claims to be following RFC 2119, but blatantly violates RFC 2119,
by trying to impose BIND 9's private decisions on everyone else.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor
to clients on the wire---are obvious implementation bugs.
Do you think I should write drafts specifying my cache structure,
falsely label those drafts as ``clarifications,'' and pay a bunch of
people to push those drafts through the IETF standardization process?
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor
to allow it. (Besides,
IPSEC does a better job than TSIG.)
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
specifically included my
private subscription address, which hadn't appeared anywhere in the
messages I actually sent.
Unintentional, eh?
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
the arguments and ignoring the objections.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
delivered to my subscription address, while other subscribers
have received quite a few messages. Forged unsubscription requests with
no confirmation? ``Accidental'' problems in Bush's MTA? Stay tuned.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science
that don't work correctly with unextended
protocol implementations.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
with economic
interests in stifling product competition''; your reviews plainly flunk
this test.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
Keith claims that allowing ``contributions from outsiders'' requires
delay and manual review. That claim is absurd. Immediately bounce the
message to the ``outsider,'' with instructions explaining how to have
the message sent to subscribers; end of problem.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor
---potentially quite valuable messages---continue to be
thrown away.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
.
If a message isn't posted immediately, it must be bounced, with a clear
explanation of how to have it posted without Bush's intervention.
If the IETF documentation doesn't make sufficiently clear that Bush's
behavior is unacceptable, that documentation also has to be fixed.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate
to straightforwardly arrange for #1.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
outrageous that valid messages are being silently discarded---even
if the number is not as large as hundreds per year.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
P.S. Out of my twelve messages, the five
``mistakes''?
Manual reviews are completely inappropriate for a standardization forum.
They allow uncontrolled abuse, even when they aren't exacerbated by a
lack of notification to the sender.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University
for axfr-clarify.
As far as I can see, that's it. There were no other public discussions.
The DNSEXT chairs' declaration of consensus was fraudulent.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
P.S. Randy
the nodes are separate when the zones are on separate servers,
it makes sense for them to also be separate when they zones happen to
be on the same server.
Please stop trying to force everybody else to imitate BIND 9's
implementation decisions.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department
/djbdns/axfr-clarify.html shows that the
DNSEXT chairs unilaterally pushed this document forward on 2001.03.13,
2001.04.04, 2001.06.22, and now 2002.11.13. People who object to the
document have had to speak up again and again and again.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics
in the semantics of DNS, a change
incompatible with a huge amount of widely deployed software---yet the
BIND company claims that it's a ``clarification'' codifying ``existing
practice'' in accordance with the ``fielded DNS server software''!
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department
, AXFR response formats.
My web page also mentions, for completeness, two problems that were
fixed in axfr-clarify-02.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
, be different between these two situations?
Even worse, what about ASCII typos that produce valid domain names?
Basic rule of usability: Have the computer copy the data so that the
user doesn't have an opportunity to make a mistake. Saves time, too.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department
better! I hope
someday you can travel to Taiwan and meet some of your fans.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
is to move your email reading, web
browsing, etc. from your 1970s-vintage VT100 to a graphics terminal.
Have you considered the VT340, for example? Or an IBM PC, model 5150?
a good 20% of sites out there will just have to shut down ops permanently
Get a grip, Paul.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate
hundreds of Chinese-speaking users, for example.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
P.S. If you'd like to see an example of a serious UTF-8 IDN proposal,
try http://cr.yp.to/proto/idnc3.html.
move forward over so many objections.
Even the strongest desire to _do something_ is less important than the
requirement to obtain consensus for any change.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
coauthor Adam Costello has already admitted
this. Surely you agree that bounced mail is serious!
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
? 50 years?
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
so hard to
understand how much the users will benefit from settling on UTF-8?
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
types of failures.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
continued data corruption is an embarrassment to the Sendmail
company. The fact that RFC 2821 and RFC 2822 allow this garbage is an
embarrassment to the IETF.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
failures by upgrading
_everything_, or by ugprading _nothing_. The problem is the transition.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
with the transition
plan. It _is_ possible to make a world of multiple character encodings
work correctly, even though it's remarkably bad software engineering.
Of course, the lack of interoperability is only one of IDNA's problems.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics
by users.
Everything is judged by the user experience, yes, but you are clearly
incorrect in saying that the encoding is irrelevant.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
talking about are specified in the IDNA documents.
They will produce interoperability problems visible on the wire. You are
incorrect in saying that this is outside the IETF's scope.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University
set to UTF-8? Costello, aware that a ``yes'' answer
would cause interoperability problems and that a ``no'' answer would
mean that users see gobbledygook instead of non-ASCII glyphs, ignored
the question.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer
written objections from at least fifteen regular WG
participants and _hundreds_ of other people. The merits of other
proposals are simply not relevant.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
mailing list in opposition to IDNA.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
procedures don't say ``It's
okay to make an incredibly destructive modification to the Internet
protocol suite if you have to _do something_.''
I hope that the IDN WG can settle on a safe course of action. However,
until that happens, we will have to stick to the status quo.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate
[In October 2000, the IESG said that it had approved Bush's rejection of
``SPAM other postings unrelated to WG.'' Bush is now attempting to cut
short an on-topic discussion. The WG has not authorized Bush's behavior.
Has the IESG authorized it? Can the IESG do this without WG approval?
See
60 matches
Mail list logo
