Subject: Re: DNS Server DoS Attacks

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 06:30:06 -0800

>>>>> "djb" == D J Bernstein <[email-masked]> writes:

    djb> The DNS protocol should be augmented with a separate protocol
    djb> for distributing (signed) copies of the root zone 

I can't believe you just said that. Does this mean you have recanted
on your previous strident objections to DNSSEC? :-)

--
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: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 03:28:38 -0800

>>>>> "djb" == D J Bernstein <[email-masked]> writes:

    djb> RFC 1034 says that the AXFR server sends ``messages'' that
    djb> ``carry'' all the records. This is ambiguous

I'm perplexed. You accept RFC1034 is ambiguous on the subject of zone
transfers. Fine. So why are you objecting to a draft which clarifies the
specification and eliminates that ambiguity?