[bind10-dev] DDNS acl then prereqs or vice versa

[Michal 'vorner' Vaner]

Hello

On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 06:02:55PM +0200, Jelte Jansen wrote:
> Reasons to follow spec: we are supposed to be a reference implementation.
> Reasons not to follow spec: it makes no sense and leaks data. It also
> causes unnecessary transactions (which must have been started to do
> the prereq checking), but that is a relatively minor point.

Is it in the scope of the DDNS spec to say when to do ACLs at all? I mean, the
base RFCs don't say where we should do ACLs on queries or transfers, do they?

But provided the RFC does really say that (I know, we live in an imperfect
world, everybody says what they want, even the RFCs), would the right thing to
do be proposing a fixup RFC or something and then follow that? I don't like to
do something that makes no sense at all just because some rule says so.

With regards

-- 
If it works, fix it.

Michal 'vorner' Vaner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind10-dev/attachments/20120605/68519575/attachment.bin>