Go read RFC 1982. They can do it that way without any real trouble as long as all of the secondary (B-M) servers are tweaked. Check out section 7 in particular.
---> Phil On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Frank Louwers wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:17:58PM +0000, Richard D G Cox wrote: > > > > | but isn't 2004010101 (today) > 1076370400 (9 Feb 2004)? > > > > Nope! > > > > >> The new format will be the UTC time at the moment of zone generation > > >> encoded as the number of seconds since the UNIX epoch. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > ... and not as YYYYMMDDHHMMSS or any contracted version thereof! > > Don't they use YYYYMMDDNN now? So today's version whould be 2004010801. > AFAIK, 1076370400 is actually "less" then 2004010801... > > I know there are ways to "trick" nameservers in believing less is more, > but that requires at least 2 changes, and I don't know if that is > actually RFC-compliant behaviour... > > Kind Regards, > Frank Louwers > > -- > Openminds bvba www.openminds.be > Tweebruggenstraat 16 - 9000 Gent - Belgium >