Subject: Re: wcard-clarify breaking RFC 2308 NXDOMAIN

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Aug 2003 04:47:30 -0000

Alan Barrett writes:
> If Paul Vixie said that,

``After RFC 2308, empty nonterminals are signalled with NXDOMAIN.''
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=199912080700.XAA18392%40bb.rc.vix.com

> he was wrong.  His mistake does not amount to a change of the protocol.

Let me get this straight. After the BIND company

   (1) issues an RFC that clearly allows NXDOMAIN in this situation,
   (2) tells a new implementor that NXDOMAIN in this situation is fine,
   (3) publishes BIND 9, which uses NXDOMAIN in this situation, and
   (4) allows this use of NXDOMAIN to be deployed for four years,

you think it's perfectly reasonable for the BIND company to change its
mind and publish a new RFC saying---without a shred of justification---
that NXDOMAIN in this situation is prohibited?

If the answer to my question in 1999 had been ``Don't use NXDOMAIN,'' I
would have done the extra work to generate NODATA. But Vixie said that
NXDOMAIN was allowed (in fact, required). So I used NXDOMAIN.

Now, four years later, the BIND company is trying to force my users into
a completely unnecessary patch cycle. If the BIND company wants to screw
BIND users, I don't particularly care; but having the BIND company abuse
the standards process to punish _my_ users is completely unacceptable.

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago

---

From: Alan Barrett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:43:38 +0200

>    (4) allows this use of NXDOMAIN to be deployed for four years,

(1) did not happen.
(2) was a mistake by one person, not by a company or the IETF.
(3) is a bug in bind 9.
(4) is a bug in bind 9.

> that NXDOMAIN in this situation is prohibited?

Since the premises to not hold, the conclusion makes no sense.

--apb (Alan Barrett)

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:17:36 +0000

> (3) is a bug in bind 9.

which version/versions, specifically?  see below.

---

;; ANSWER SECTION:
version.bind.           0       CH      TXT     "9.3.0a0"

---

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;this.example.vix.com.          IN      A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
example.vix.com.        3600    IN      SOA     example.vix.com. root.vix.com. 2003082602 1800 900 604800 86400

---

#fh:i386# grep this example.vix.com 
test.a.is.this  A       127.0.0.5

---

i don't know why any of you is bothering to refute bernstein's assertions,
or even respond to him, or even read his tripe.  however, do consider the
likelihood of him defending my prior comments had he DISAGREED with them,
and also consider that whilest i did in fact misunderstand/misread RFC2308,
several other members of what bernstein laughably calls "the bind company",
notably the author of rfc2308 and a coauthor of the current wildcard draft,
have views remarkably different than the one bernstein quotes me as having.

can we have some serious discourse now?