nanog mailing list archives
Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded
From: Pete Ehlke <pde () ehlke net>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:30:41 -0800
Pim van Riezen (pi () vuurwerk nl) said, on [010201 18:58]:
Parsing human input isn't hard, you know. Robustness doesn't come from being anal. If there's a bogus entry, reject the entry not the entire zone. The rejection as such doesn't even classify as bogosity, it's the
I fail to understand this. You seem to suggest that a name server should reject the SOA record, but accept and attempt to serve the zone. Precisely how would that work?
I also seriously counter your claim that having this bracket on the next line is in any way bogus. It's visually superior to the now enforced option of having it on the same line. There is nothing in the parser not to understand it. Spreading data across lines is commonly accepted in a lot of configuration languages and bind has been among this in all versions I previously ran. Why is that now suddenly bogus?
Because rfc1035 has always defined it as bogus. The parenthesis is, as you are now no doubt aware, a line continuation character: 5.1. Format The format of these files is a sequence of entries. Entries are predominantly line-oriented, though parentheses can be used to continue a list of items across a line boundary, and text literals can contain CRLF within the text. Any combination of tabs and spaces act as a delimiter between the separate items that make up an entry. The end of any line in the master file can end with a comment. The comment starts with a ";" (semicolon). -P.
Current thread:
- Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Simon Waters (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Pete Ehlke (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Derek J. Balling (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded mdevney (Feb 24)
- Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Pete Ehlke (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Pete Ehlke (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Jim Mercer (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded J Bacher (Feb 24)
- Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Adam McKenna (Feb 24)
- Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Patrick Greenwell (Feb 24)