Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded

[Joshua Goodall <joshua () roughtrade net>]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Eric A. Hall wrote:

> [assorted quote depths]
> > > > (1) 8.2.3 Doesn't accept the "(" in the SOA string to be on the
> > > > next line after the IN SOA. Our script-generated zonefiles, about
> > > > 45000 of them, all had this.
> > >
> > > Neither do the relevant RFC's, or any other DNS implementation.
> > > Pre-8.2.3 was simply _wrong_ to accept that syntax.
> >
> > Is there any particular harm from accepting this syntax.
>
> No and Yes. No in that an argument could be made that the old parsing
> routine fell under the "be liberal in what you accept" rules. Yes in that
> the Master File Format is intended to provide an interchangable database
> table, so while BIND may have been liberal it was doing so at the expense
> of some interoperability measures.

RFC 1122 s1.2.2 may not apply directly to configuration files, but the
spirit is good.  The bracket acceptance would be classed as a
fault-tolerance feature, if BIND had a marketing department and glossy
brochures :)

I can understand the annoyance felt by a large hosting provider updating
BIND in an emergency and finding more than just a security fix.  Pim is, I
guess, concerned that similar updates in future may have longer MTTR
impact.  Pete Elke's point about preproduction testing could perhaps be
turned from a combative tone to the constructive without loss of
information.

joshua