nanog mailing list archives

Re: trouble with .gov dns?


From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis () neustar biz>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 13:11:10 -0400

At 18:53 +0200 5/3/11, Florian Weimer wrote:
* David Conrad:

 On May 2, 2011, at 10:19 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
 I would go even further---the DO bit is not about DNSSEC at all.

 Err, yes it is.

I know you think it is, but you're wrong if you look at the overall
protocol.

This is becoming a thread-to-the-death over a general weakness in the DNS protocol. (Realizing this mailing list is NANOG, not an IETF one.) Like it or not, "versioning" and "negotiation" are poor-to-non-existent in DNS. What's happening here is a document author (David) meant one thing and implementations (e.g., BIND) interpreting the document another way. It doesn't matter that David is right (in that he meant it another way, and the way is what the WG meant), it more matters that the ship has sailed on "fixing" this in implementations. And frankly, the fix isn't that important in retrospect because what the implementers did is actually ok, we can and we do live nicely with it.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

Me to infant son: "Waah! Waah! Is that all you can say?  Waah?"
Son: "Waah!"


Current thread: