From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 2 01:40:44 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C2EF16A419; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 01:40:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from skip@menantico.com) Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net (vms042pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD9C513C45B; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 01:40:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from skip@menantico.com) Received: from mx.menantico.com ([71.168.196.161]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JM400EFOHZJYUW6@vms042.mailsrvcs.net>; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:40:32 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:45:56 -0400 From: Skip Ford In-reply-to: <200708020114.l721EMvl095981@drugs.dv.isc.org> To: Mark Andrews , Doug Barton , FreeBSD Current , FreeBSD Stable Mail-followup-to: Mark Andrews , Doug Barton , FreeBSD Current , FreeBSD Stable Message-id: <20070802014556.GH59008@menantico.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline References: <20070802004404.GG59008@menantico.com> <200708020114.l721EMvl095981@drugs.dv.isc.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: Subject: Re: default dns config change causing major poolpah X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:40:44 -0000 Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > I don't think that "all" of the drama could have been avoided in any > > > > case, there is too much emotion surrounding this issue. > > > > > > I'll concur with Doug on this. I've been discussing doing > > > just this for the last 10+ years. > > > > Why don't you update 2870 then to make it so? > > Why don't you? You seem to be the one worried about it :-) I just figured you'd be able to snap your fingers, click your heels, and be done with it. > I want to get draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones through > first before dealing with the issue of how to get every > iterative resolver serving the root. FWIW, I reviewed your draft back in March and had no objections. :-) > > If all the roots provided it and were required to, there's no > > problem. But current best practice as defined by 2870 are > > for roots to only answer AXFRs from other roots. > > > > How can you advocate an OS pushing a configuration that isn't > > guaranteed to be functional? I understand the odds of it > > breaking, and I understand the benefits. That's not the issue. > > There is a difference between saying we should do this and > just doing it. Part of process is to get consenus that > this is reasonable or at least won't hurt and working what > needs to be changed to make it happen. Ah, sorry for putting words in your mouth then. Now I understand, and I agree. -- Skip