Subject: Re: Confirming the Nominet position

From: [email-masked] (Geoffrey Sisson)
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 09:18:15 +0100 (BST)

Paul Vixie <[email-masked]> writes:

> i disagree.  when i put the first AXFR-blocking code into BIND 4 in ~1988,
> i considered it a protocol violation and i made my apologies to the gods.
> 
> it appears that those gods have a long memory, and a grand scale of vengeance.

RFC 821 specifies SMTP as a protocol which permits any host to connect
to an `SMTP-receiver' and deliver messages.  Unanticipated developments
in the use of SMTP have resulted in this any <-> any principle being
challanged, in particular in the work of the marid WG.  There have
certainly been comparable developments in the (ab)use of DNS; perhaps
behaviour that was introduced via implementation rather than
specification should now be `ratified' via a standards-track document?

Regards

Geoff

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 15:16:11 +1200

>i considered it a protocol violation and i made my apologies to the gods.

Unfortunately, protocols designed in a kinder, gentler age have had to
be modified or "broken" to accommodate policy and security requirements
brought on by the somewhat nastier world that the Internet has become.

Every firewall on the planet basically represents a set of protocol
violations.  Some of them better considered than others.

It seems to me somewhat ironic that in attempting to deal with some of
the nastiness, DNSSECbis deployment itself faces problems because of
another facet of that very same nastiness.

>it appears that those gods have a long memory, and a grand scale of

-- don