Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC Summary: AXFR clarify

From: Ólafur Gudmundsson/DNSEXT co-chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:49:24 -0500

At 12:45 2002-11-17, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>Gudmundsson writes:
> > DNSEXT has completed it's review of this document and requests that
> > it be advanced to Proposed standard.
>
>Excuse me? When did that happen? The document is highly controversial.
>The conclusion of the July meeting was ``Not ready to go: axfr-clarify,
>too bind specific.'' There were no subsequent public discussions.

Highly controversial is  relative term, few individuals do not make a
document "controversial".
As for the no public discussion that is answered in following
email to namedroppers:
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2002/msg02116.html

Where Randy explains that he had technical doubts if it was unnecessarily
overly-definitive document, after off-line technical discussions with me
and others he removed his hold.
The minutes from Yokohama could be better on what else he said.

We both knew your position when we forwarded the document to the
area director.

>In fact, it's even worse than that: this so-called ``clarification'' is
>specific to _BIND 9_. It imposes requirements incompatible with BIND 8,
>djbdns, and probably a bunch more widely deployed servers.
>
>http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/axfr-clarify.html gives detailed explanations of
>my ten objections to this document. To summarize:
>
>   * ``Timeline'': This document obviously does not have consensus. This
>      is the fourth time that Gudmundsson has tried to ram this document
>      through the process by misrepresenting the WG discussions.

With only you objecting to the document and number of members of the
working supporting it, how can we as WG chairs draw other conclusion that
there is a rough consensus?
Anyway the document is being forwarded to the IESG for review and
they will issue a IETF last call where you and others that object to
the document can restate your case.

The following message refutes all your points better than I can
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2002/msg01885.html

Your understanding of 1034 disagrees with some other implementors.
Your understanding of 1034 does make it impossible to implement IXFR.

My message to namedroppers was to the point WG agrees this document is
a good thing, and that there are some dissenters from the consensus
of the WG.
Dan, no-one has veto power in the work of the IETF your childish
behavior and outbursts do not harm anyone but yourself and the
valid technical points you attempt to make.

         Olafur

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Dec 2002 08:58:22 -0000

DNSEXT chair Olafur Gudmundsson, who has been paid for BIND work, writes:
> only you objecting to the document 

There have been public objections from Aaron Swartz, Felix von Leitner,
Len Budney, Kenji Rikitake, Dean Anderson, Sam Trenholme (MaraDNS
implementor), and of course me (djbdns implementor)---plus an unknown
number of people whose messages to namedroppers have been silently
discarded by Randy Bush.

Meanwhile, axfr-clarify is being pushed primarily by people with
financial interests in BIND. The Yokohama minutes say ``too bind
specific'' with no hint of any dispute about that, and the Atlanta
minutes don't indicate any further discussion.

What's most damning, of course, is the simple fact that the objections
are being ignored. http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/axfr-clarify.html explains in
detail what's wrong with the BIND company's arguments; the BIND company
responds by repeating the arguments and ignoring the objections.

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

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:53:28 +0100

On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 08:58:22AM -0000,
 D. J. Bernstein <[email-masked]> wrote 

> DNSEXT chair Olafur Gudmundsson, who has been paid for BIND work, writes:

For me, this is too much.

For those who use procmail:

:0
* ^From:.*D. J. Bernstein
/dev/null

--
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/>