Date: 19 Dec 1999 05:34:49 -0000 Message-ID: <19991219053449.17053.qmail@cr.yp.to> From: "D. J. Bernstein" To: iesg@ietf.org, djb@cr.yp.to Subject: namedroppers censorship References: <19991219005223.16101.qmail@cr.yp.to> Randy Bush writes: > this belongs in bind-users@isc.org, not namedroppers I'm not asking how to use BIND. I'm asking questions about basic DNS interoperability issues. My message is solidly within the announced scope of the namedroppers mailing list. Furthermore, I didn't send my message to Bush asking his opinion on the best mailing list to use. I sent my message to namedroppers. Apparently Bush prevented it from being forwarded to the list subscribers. As a DNS implementor trying to help the Internet community by breaking the BIND monopoly, I am deeply concerned about BIND's violations of the applicable standards. One of the contributing factors to BIND's monopoly is the difficulty of finding out what new implementations really need to do. I am disgusted by Bush's continuing interference with discussions on the namedroppers mailing list. I requested a year ago that the IESG stop using censored mailing lists for standardization activities. I once again request that the IESG stop using censored mailing lists for standardization activities. I request that, in particular, the IESG move DNS standardization activities from the namedroppers mailing list to an open mailing list. I also request that the IESG publicly strip Bush of his position to punish him for his censorship of namedroppers. This request does not constitute a settlement offer. ---Dan > > Date: 19 Dec 1999 00:52:23 -0000 > > From: "D. J. Bernstein" > > To: namedroppers@internic.net > > Subject: *.143.38.in-addr.arpa > > > > The servers for 143.38.in-addr.arpa respond to a PTR query for > > 65.113.143.38.in-addr.arpa with the nonsensical referral > > > > *.143.38.in-addr.arpa NS pri1.dns.psi.net > > *.143.38.in-addr.arpa NS pri2.dns.psi.net > > *.143.38.in-addr.arpa NS pri3.dns.psi.net > > > > Is this the symptom of a common configuration error or BIND bug? Does > > BIND take any special action as a client to work around such problems? > > > > According to RFC 1034, this reply ``is bogus and should be ignored.'' > > But BIND passes it along to the client---violating the RFC 1034 rule > > that an RD+RA response must be an answer, an NXDOMAIN, or a temporary > > failure. Why doesn't BIND say SERVFAIL here? > > > > ---Dan