Pekka;
> > > > 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?
> >
> > If I say something is leagal with regard to RFC103[45], I am referring
> > to the entire document of RFC103[45].
>
> Please show the main points why this should be accepted
I say it leagal with regard to RFC103[45].
> (and perhaps what
> misinterpretation/error caused it to be denied).
A broken implementation (old BIND) has a well known security problem
of cache contamination.
Latter implementations are broken to wrongly fix the problem.
> "_I_ know but if you're so stupid you don't know, I'm not going to tell
> _you_" -attitude is not going to help anyone and is fruitless as a basis
> for settling the dispute.
Glue related problems are so subtle and complex that you are not stupid
merely because you can not understand it.
But I'm just tired of explaining it so many times for these 10 years.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
