[ I dropped out namedroppers as they're not interested in this
conversation ]
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> 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 (and perhaps what
misinterpretation/error caused it to be denied).
"_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.
If you can come up with the specifics, Dan might actually be able to
counter your claim.
--
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
