On Tue, 1 May 2001, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> 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].
Could you please show _exactly_ what part(s) you're referring to? It
might help us mortals understand what's the crux here.
Hopefully this could help (a bit) in putting the argument down too.
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
