FreeBSD violates RFC2870 [was: Re: Problems with named default configuration in 6-STABLE]

[Tom Evans]

On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 13:08 +0200, Heiko Wundram (Beenic) wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 July 2007 12:47:50 Volker wrote:
> > I've googled a bit. RFC 2870 says:
> >
> >   2.7 Root servers SHOULD NOT answer AXFR, or other zone transfer,
> >        queries from clients other than other root servers.  This
> >        restriction is intended to, among other things, prevent
> >        unnecessary load on the root servers as advice has been heard
> >        such as "To avoid having a corruptible cache, make your server a
> >        stealth secondary for the root zone."  The root servers MAY put
> >        the root zone up for ftp or other access on one or more less
> >        critical servers.
> 
> Read up on:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> 
> which specifically says that "should not" means "recommended not to", but not 
> explicitly forbidden. So, this behaviour is not in violation of RFC2870, just 
> discouraged by it. If the (respective) roots offer it, perfect.
> 

Relying on a "SHOULD NOT" being ignored is a Bad Thing.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20070717/f3a4b32f/attachment.pgp