[bind10-dev] Resolver testing

[Jerry Scharf]

Shane,

The reason the "It works with BIND 9" argument works so well is that we 
want people to convert. If we cut a BIND 10 user off from people they 
want to interact with, it usually doesn't matter to them what some RFC 
says. As they see it, they want to talk to XYZ and you are stopping them.

A clarification to the RFC is a good thing and there is a precedent for 
that in DNS. It may make some people change to do the right thing. 
Unfortunately, I see it as independent of the conversion problem above.

jerry

On 11/03/2010 03:30 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
> Jerry,
>
> On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 08:21 -0700, Jerry Scharf wrote:
>> I will point out one interesting aspect for this.
>>
>> There are things out there that are at best ambiguous relative to the
>> RFCs. In these cases, if it works for BIND 9, it needs to work for BIND
>> 10. I remember at one point that merit.edu had a very strange setup that
>> really made no sense. But since it worked with BIND 9, it had to be made
>> to work on all other recursive servers. So having tests that compare
>> answers from BIND 10 with BIND 9 may be an useful.
>
> This is indeed interesting. To be honest, I think we will discover all
> kinds of unanticipated behavior with BIND 9 and have to make some
> decisions about how closely to follow it. We may even take the
> opportunity to document these as an informational RFC....
>
> Like with your merit.edu example, Jelte tells me that a big problem with
> Unbound development is that people say "it works with BIND" and expect
> all other products to follow, regardless of what standards say.
>
> Fun times!
>
> --
> Shane
>
> _______________________________________________
> bind10-dev mailing list
> bind10-dev at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind10-dev