On 20/12/2016 17:43, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 20 Dec 2016, at 8:35, Ray Bellis wrote: > >> The document primarily covers BIND's behaviour. > > Noted. That seems like a good reason for ISC to document it.
ISC isn't the current custodian of the specification. Vixie and VJS are. >> It would be good if other implementations were completely compatible >> with that, > > Is this so that different implementations use the same master file > format, or something else? Same zone structure (it's not the file format, but the contents thereof) and same order-of-processing rules. > It is completely unnecessary for the future enhancements to be based on > an RFC. The IETF has experience where trying to change a vendor-specific > informational RFC to something better was harder than starting from > "here's a way to do it; Appendix A shows the differences in how This Big > Vendor did it earlier". Not my call - I'm relaying what was said in Seoul. Ray _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
