Dan;
> This is a bug in the protocol, not in any particular
> implementation. All of my comments apply to BIND's A6 implementation;
> BIND discards out-of-bailiwick records for security, just as djbdns
> does. Ohta's ``fix'' comments are nonsense.
So, your point is that BIND defines DNS protocol.
However, BIND does not. RFC103[45] does.
Your implementation can not handle a configuration perfectly leagal
with regard to RFC103[45] and is broken.
> Ohta is wrong.
Wrong on what?
I never said BIND is not broken.
About 10 years ago, I noticed BIND broken and suggested Paul how he
can fix it.
I don't know whether he fixed BIND correctly or not, but as Paul,
seemingly, did not understand the problem serious, I will not be
surprised if BIND is still broken.
However, it does not affect the fact that your implementation is
broken.
Your implementation is broken, not because it behaves differently
from BIND but because it can not handle a configuration perfectly
leagal with regard to RFC103[45].
Masataka Ohta
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
