bad answers from BIND9 ?

[Simon Waters]

Kevin Darcy wrote:
>  
> The difference between the servers is that the BIND 8 nameserver happens to
> have the answer cached. So it gives an answer. The BIND 9 nameserver
> apparently doesn't. So it gives a referral. The respective versions of
> BIND that these nameservers are running has no apparent bearing on the
> contents of their responses.

So why do the root servers give different answers, as they don't
allow recursion? 

$ dig  +short +norec @a.root-servers.net pl ns 
DNS3.ATMAN.pl. 
BILBO.NASK.ORG.pl. 
DNS2.MAN.LODZ.pl. 
NMS.CYF-KR.EDU.pl. 
NS.RIPE.NET. 
SUNIC.SUNET.SE. 
DNS2.TPSA.pl. 
DNS.FUW.EDU.pl. 
NS3.IKP.pl.

$ dig  +short +norec @f.root-servers.net pl ns 
$

The error is to assume BIND 9 was wrong, not that recursion is
involved, I think.

I wonder whether the performance hit on upgrading root servers
to BIND 9 is less because of the shorter responses. Guess the
people who run F know.

Referrals should have empty answer sections AFAIK, the standard
is unambiguous, and Vixie amongst others have repeated this
claim many times.